THE GOSPELS
AS
HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS
2Lont>on: C. J. CLAY AND SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AVE MARIA LANE. 50, WELLINGTON STREET.
Iftpjtg: F. A. BROCKHAUS.
£eto gork: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
Bombag anto Calcutta: MACMILLAN & CO., LTD.
[All Rights reserved.}
THE GOSPELS
AS
HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS
PART I. THE EARLY USE OF THE GOSPELS
BY
VINCENT HENRY STANTON, D.D.
FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, ELY PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
C (o
0 X
\
CAMBRIDGE :
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1903
Cambridge :
PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
PREFACE.
THE importance of the subject with which I attempt to deal in this work need not be insisted on. It will be recognised even when the rise of Christianity is viewed simply as one of the most momentous movements in the world's history. It will be felt still more deeply by all who consider that the Christian Faith, as held in all ages and to this day by the vast majority of Christians, is essentially faith in the fact of a revelation of God's character and purpose made in the historical person of Jesus Christ, and through events connected with him, for which the Gospels are the most explicit, and among the primary, witnesses.
No one, who desires to treat the Gospel history in the light of modern critical studies, can avoid commencing with some appreciation of the Gospels as historical documents, so as at least to indicate his own attitude towards them, and the manner in which he intends to use them. And Lives of Christ written in the spirit and with the method of scientific history usually contain a preliminary disquisition of consider- able length on " the Sources," which is chiefly occupied with the date and authorship of the several Gospels, their simple or composite character, and historical value in whole or in part. Yet such questions can hardly be examined satis- factorily when they are not made the principal object of enquiry. Accordingly I have chosen the records themselves for the subject of the present work. But the bearing of our investigations upon the credibility of particular aspects and
vi Preface
portions of the Gospel narrative will at times be obvious. The purpose, also, throughout will clearly be to provide a surer basis for a conception of the history as a whole ; while the actual consideration of some of its problems will be found necessary to enable us to estimate the character of the documents. Although, therefore, many of our discussions must, I fear, be dry and complex, they will not be altogether unrelieved by vivid human interest.
In Part I., contained in the present volume, I examine the traces of the use of the Gospels and the indications of the manner in which they were regarded, afforded by the remains of early Christian literature : — in short, the dates and the trust- worthiness of the Gospels so far as these depend upon external evidence. It is my purpose to discuss in Part II. the history of the composition of the Synoptic Gospels, while Part III. will be devoted to the internal character of the Fourth Gospel, and to a comparison between it and the Synoptics. Part IV. will comprise topics which can most conveniently be con- sidered connectedly for all four Gospels. In particular an endeavour will there be made to employ two tests which may be applied to their narratives ; we shall seek (a) to ascertain the degree of accuracy by which their representations of Jewish life and thought for the period to which they refer are marked ; (b) to see how far the conception of the history of the rise of Christianity which can be formed from them agrees with that which is to be derived from other very early Christian writings, especially those contained in the New Testament.
The different portions of this field of enquiry might be and often have been taken separately ; and it is a comfort to me to think, in entering upon so large a task, that if time and strength are not allowed me to complete it, the earlier Parts will form in a sense distinct wholes. Yet there can be no question that there is a close relation between them all ; that some of the results obtained in the study of each need to be confirmed or corrected by those obtained in others ; and that all alike must be considered before a judgment can be rightly passed upon the character of the sources of the Gospel history.
Preface vii
It will be necessary that I should endeavour to furnish a connected view of the present state of knowledge and opinion in regard to different portions of my subject. No point in it, therefore, which is of real significance should be wholly passed over. Where, however, a large amount of agree- ment exists among competent scholars who have approached the consideration of the topics in question with different prepossessions — and such there now is on not a few points, including some of great importance, upon which in the past there has been no little controversy — it will in general suffice that I should state the conclusions that have been reached, or at most that I should very briefly indicate the grounds on which they rest, while giving references to other writers. On the other hand, it will be my aim to discuss as thoroughly as I can those points which are still sub lite, neglecting no fact that seems to me to be material for their decision, or argument which is weighty in itself, or noteworthy on account of the eminence of those who use it. Naturally, also, in determining the amount of detail which seems advisable in particular cases I shall have regard to views prevalent in England, and the sources of information which have been at the disposal of the majority of English readers who are interested in subjects of this class. What I have said will, I think, explain and justify the varieties of proportion in the treatment of different topics, — the compression in some cases, the elaboration in others.
Approaches to agreement after much controversy are a sign of progress in the ascertainment of historical truth. In no division of our subject, perhaps, is there better ground for satisfaction in this respect than in that with which we shall in this volume be concerned. The late dates for the Gospels which were powerfully advocated half a century ago, or still more recently, in close connexion with a particular theory of the history of the early Church and of many of its literary remains, have to a great extent been abandoned, together with that theory itself, in consequence of the testing to which it has been subjected.
viii Preface
But there is now, it seems to me, some danger that further advance in the acquisition of settled positions may be retarded, through a failure to perceive the proper scope of an investi- gation into the history of the reception of the Gospels by the Church. That the Gospels were composed early enough to allow of the writers themselves having had, or having been in contact with those who had, immediate knowledge of that which they relate, is undoubtedly a very important point. But besides the dates at which the Gospels appeared, other circumstances, such as the quarter whence they proceeded, are of importance in determining whether it is likely that the writers had the qualification just referred to. An example, the force of which will be at once perceived, is to be found in the present position of criticism as to the Fourth Gospel. Many of those who hold that it cannot have been composed later than the first decade or so of the second century, and that it may possibly have been put forth before the end of the first, do not admit that it is by the Apostle John, or that it gives his testimony, or that it can be used as a trustworthy source of information for the Gospel history, except perhaps in a few particulars.
What evidence do the facts as to the use of the Gospels, the position which in early times they held, and the traditions respecting them, afford that these writings faithfully represent the oral teaching and testimony of the Apostles and their disciples? This is the question for which in the present Part we have to seek an answer ; and in order that a satisfactory one may be given, a decision is required on not a few points in regard to which there are grave differences of opinion.
In the class of subjects with which we shall be concerned, progress towards fuller and surer knowledge can be made only through renewed weighing of the available evidence, conjoined with much impartial criticism of the work of prede- cessors in the same field. I have not scrupled to adjudicate upon, and in some instances to reject, the opinions and arguments of men for whom we have peculiar reason in Cambridge to cherish deep reverence, and to whom I myself
Preface ix
look up as my chief teachers. I hope, however, that no one will suppose me to be forgetful of what I owe them. I am also very sensible of obligations, which it is impossible adequately to express, to many other scholars, with whom I have been unable to agree on particular points or even in my general conclusions. I would more especially here acknowledge my debt to two eminent and recent writers who themselves differ widely in their point of view, and whose merits are also in some respects different, Dr Th. Zahn and Dr A. Harnack. The Geschichte des Neutestament- lichen Kanons, and the Forschungen on the same subject, of. the former, and the Chronologic and Geschichte der Altchrist- lichen Litteratur of the latter, have naturally been in constant use throughout the preparation of the present volume, and have been of very great service to me.
V. H. STANTON. September, 1903.
For the convenience of some readers who may wish to turn to my references I may mention, that in the case of the writings included in Lightfoot and Harmer's Apostolic Fathers, I have given the numbers of the sections, etc., employed in that edition. In references to Irenaeus I have used Massuet's divisions, which will be found in Harvey's edition along with his own and Grabe's ; in those to Clement of Alexandria the pages mentioned are Potter's, which are noted by Dindorf in his margin. The sub-divisions of chapters in references to Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History are those in Heinichen's edition. There is not, I think, any danger of ambiguity in other cases.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS; THE EVIDENCE AS TO
THE USE OF ANY OF THE GOSPELS IN THE
SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE.
PAGES The nature and order of the investigation upon which we are
entering '."•••. . 1-2
The character of the Evangelic quotations in early Christian
writers 3~5
The Sayings of Christ in the Epistle of Clement . . . 5-14
Parallelisms with the Synoptic Gospels in the Epistles of
Ignatius and Poly carp 14-18
Evidence of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp as to the Fourth
Gospel 18-21
ADDITIONAL NOTES :
I. The form of ancient books as affecting habits of
quotation . . .- . . . . . • 22-25 II. 'The parallelisms with the Gospels in the Apostolic
Fathers . ..... 25-28
CHAPTER II.
THE TRANSITION FROM THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE AGE OF THE APOLOGISTS AND OF THE CONFLICT WITH GNOSTICISM.
The broad difference between the early Christian writings noticed in the last Chapter and those whose testimony has next to be considered ....'.»• 29
xii Table of Contents
PAGES
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles . . . . . 29-31
The Epistle of Barnabas 3i~33
The Shepherd of Hermas 34-47
The Apology of Aristides 48-52
The fragments of Papias on the Gospels .... 52-57
The (so-called) Second Epistle of Clement .... 58-63
Marcion, Basilides and Valentinus 64-69
ADDITIONAL NOTES :
I. Parallelisms with the Gospels in the Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles 7°-?!
II. Parallelisms with the Gospels in the Shepherd of
Hermas 72-75
CHAPTER III.
JUSTIN MARTYR.
The chronology of Justin's life and writings . 76-7
The character of his Evangelic quotations and the history of
speculation in regard to their source or sources . . 77~9 Points as to which there is now a strong consensus of opinion 80
Points still sub lite :
I. Justin's attitude to the Fourth Gospel.
Probable references to, and signs of acquaintance with,
the Fourth Gospel . 81-83
Consideration of the objections urged against his having
regarded it as one of the Apostolic Memoirs . . 83-91 II. Justiris use of a source or sources for the Gospel history in addition to our Gospels.
General considerations 9* -93
Special questions :
i. Justin and the Gospel of Peter.
Broad grounds for considering it improbable that
Justin used this work 93~97
The traits common to both appear in a more
embellished form in the Gospel of Peter . 97-102
Table of Contents xiii
The similarities between them are to be attributed to the use by both of a record supposed to be Pilate's, to which Justin and Tertullian both refer (p. 103 ff.) ; which is partially given in the form of a letter still extant (p. 1 10 f.) ; and which was used in the compilation of the Gospel of Nicodemus (p. 112 ff.), and by Cyril of Jerusalem (p. 1 17 f.) . . 102-121
ii. The remaining Apocryphal matter in Justin.
Parallelisms with the Protevangelium Jacobi . 121-124 The Gospel according to the Hebrews a possible
source . . . . . . . . 124-126
General results . •. . . . . 127-8
ADDITIONAL NOTES :
I. The position of recent criticism in regard to Justin's
use of our Gospels . . . • . . . . 129-131
II. Dr E. A. Abbott on Justin's relation to the Fourth
Gospel . . 131-2
III. Parallelisms between the Gospel of Peter and other
Christian writings which may be traced to the use in common of a supposed report by, or official record made for, Pilate . . . . . . 132-3
IV. The Apocryphal matter in Justin .... 133-136
CHAPTER IV.
THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE APPEARANCE OF THE WRITINGS OF JUSTIN MARTYR AND OF THE TREATISE AGAINST HERESIES OF IRENAEUS.
Lack of literary activity in the Churches of Asia Minor up to
the middle of the second century I37~8
Melito and Apollinaris and the fragments of their writings . 138-142
The letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons . . . 142-3
The fragments of Dionysius of Corinth I43~4
Theophilus ad Auto ly cum I44~5
Tatian and his writings • I45~I5I
The writings of Athenagoras 151-2
xiv Table of Contents
PAGES
The effect of increased interest in the Doctrine of the Logos in
directing attention to the Fourth Gospel . . . .152
Hegesippus IS3~IS7
Gnostic teachers of the second generation .... 157-159 The Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs . . . .. . .159-161
CHAPTER V.
THE ASIATIC TRADITION IN REGARD TO THE APOSTLE JOHN.
The present attitude of criticism in regard to this tradition. 162-3 The topics whose bearing on the trustworthiness of this tradi- tion has to be discussed 164
(1) The silence of the Sub-Apostolic Age in regard to the Apostle John . . 164-166
(2) The effect of the reference or references to him by
Papias 166-168
(3) The personality of John the Elder .... 168-171
(4) The relations between the Apocalypse of John and the
Fourth Gospel 171-173
(5) Quartodecimanism . I73~I97
(6) The impugners in the second century of the genuine- ness of the writings attributed to the Apostle John . 198-212
(7) The value of the testimony of two of the chief wit- nesses for the truth of the common tradition :
(a) Irenaeus 213-228
(b) Polycrates 228-231
Conclusion 232-238
ADDITIONAL NOTE:
Dr J. R. Harris and Dr E. A. Abbott on the attitude of
Gaius to the Fourth Gospel 239-243
Table of Contents
xv
CHAPTER VI.
THE POSITION OF THE FOUR GOSPELS AT THE CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY; THE USE OF OTHER GOSPELS; GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.
PAGES
The evidence proves that at the close of the second century the peculiar authority of the Four Gospels was established throughout the Church of the Graeco-Roman world . . 244-249 Their position beyond these limits:
Churches on the Northern border of the Empire, and to
the South 249-250
Churches to the East :
i. The use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews
among Hebrew Christians 250-252
The relative trustworthiness of the traditions of the
Hebrew and Greek Churches .... 252-254 The contents of the Gospel according to the Hebrews 254-260
ii. The use of Tatian's Diatessaron in the Church of
Mesopotamia and the further East '. . . 260-1
Extent to which any Gospels besides the Four had been used at any time in the Greek and Latin Churches. The Gospel according to the Hebrews was held in respect here but little known, and was probably not translated by any one before Jerome (261 ff.). The circulation of the Gospel according to the Egyptians was very limited (264 ff.). Of the use of other Apocryphal Gospels in the first three- quarters of the second century there is even less trace (269) 261-269
The manner in which the unique authority of the Four Gospels was formally proclaimed implies a virtual agree- ment in respect to them which was very general and of long standing, and which had arisen from the knowledge of the generation in which they were put forth that they were authentic embodiments of the oral testimony of the first preachers of the Gospel 269-275
The amount of weight to be attached to particular traditions
as to the authorship of the several Gospels . . . 275-277
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS— THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE USE OF ANY OF THE GOSPELS IN THE SUB- APOSTOLIC AGE.
THE period in the history of the Christian Church which must come under our consideration — that extending from the close of the first to the beginning of the third century — remains as to the earlier and greater portion of it an obscure one, in spite of all that has been done for its illumination by the labour of many students. Not a few points are doubtful owing to sheer lack of evidence ; and the difficulties are not least as regards the subject of the acknowledgment of our Gospels. Near the close, however, of the second century the light is much increased, and it is beyond dispute that at that time the four Gospels, along with the greater part of the writings contained in our New Testament, held a position of peculiar authority in the larger part of the Church.
Zahn accordingly in his History of the New Testament Canon begins with an examination of the state of things at this epoch and works backward from it. The same plan was adopted by Dr Salmon in his Introduction to the New Testa- ment, the first edition of which was published a few years earlier. Much may be said in favour of this order of investi- gation. Yet on the whole it will, I think, be preferable for us to adhere to the opposite, the natural, historical order. For the establishment of the Canon of the four Gospels, as well as of that of the entire New Testament, was unquestionably a gradual process, and it needs to be so apprehended. We shall keep this fact before our minds most clearly if we follow the course of the history down from one generation to another, inquiring successively what items of information are supplied by the remains of each.
s. G. i
2 Introductory Remarks
It must not, however, be supposed that we have learned all that we can about the earlier times till, after having reached the end of our period of a little more than a hundred years, we have looked back over it as a whole. A broad difference will from the first be manifest between the earliest age and the condition of things that we are ourselves directly acquainted with ; and signs of change will be obvious as we proceed. ' The position which the Gospels held in the Sub- apostolic Age was not that which they held in the middle of the second century; that again which they held in the middle of the second century was not the same as that which they held at the end of it. But it is to be remembered that a growth which is visible springs from a life which is largely secret. Latent forces determine the direction and the final outcome of the development. And it is only by considering that direction and outcome that we can fully know what the forces are, which have been at work. This is involved in the nature of the case ; it is part of the idea of a development, and is as true of a development in human belief and practice as of any other. In the earlier stages men often do not completely understand themselves, are not fully conscious of what is in their minds, and cannot express adequately what they mean. One who confines his attention to the language and other outward signs of the time may be much at fault as to the real state of feeling, its true origin, its practical influence and its potentialities. Especially is this likely where, as in the instance before us, our knowledge is very fragmentary. The historian who in such a case fails to ask what light the later part of the history throws upon the earlier neglects a valuable means of arriving at the truth. The problem is presented to him of forming a conception of a process as a whole, and the result of the process is one of the elements given for its solution. Hence we shall at first be making as it were a preliminary survey, and preparing the way for a comprehensive view, which, when it is attained, may affect our judgment even on particular points that have been already discussed.
Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp
Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp.
The Epistle to the Corinthians, by Clement of Rome, Ignatius's seven Epistles (in the shorter Greek, or Vossian, form), and Poly carp's Epistle to the Philippians form a class by themselves of writings which may now be regarded with confidence as genuine works of these immediate successors of the Apostles. The first named is in all probability the earliest Christian document which we possess outside the Canon ; there are strong reasons and a large amount of consensus among scholars for placing it about the close of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 95 or 96)1. The Epistles of Ignatius may be referred to circ. A.D. no — II52; while from an allusion in the Epistle of Polycarp we judge that it was written only a few weeks after them.
In these works we have quotations of Christ's sayings, but in all cases cited simply as words of His ; that is to say, no reference is made by name to any document or documents, where they might be found, and they are not introduced even with the formula "it is written3." But it would be unreason- able to conclude from this that they were not derived from a written source. In all generations it has been a common
1 See Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part i, I. p. 346 f. Harnack, Chron. I. p. 255, is inclined to place it a year or two earlier.
2 The proof of the genuineness of the Letters of Ignatius in the short Greek, or Vossian, form has been due mainly to Zahn {Ignatius von Antiochien, 1873) and Lightfoot (Ap. Frs, Pt 2, I. (1885), pp. 280—430 in 2nd edition). Harnack, in the Expositor, far 1886, pp. 10, 15, agrees that the arguments for the genuineness of the Epistles in this form are conclusive. See further Chron. I. p. 388 ff. There may be more room for doubt as to the date. Yet on the whole the relation of the language of the letters to points of doctrinal controversy favours the truth of the tradition that Ignatius was martyred under Trajan. Lightfoot gave circ. A.D. no as the probable date of the composition of the letters and martyrdom. Harnack, ib., argued for the possibility or even probability of a later date, circ. A.D. 130 (see esp. p. 188). He now, however, places them in the last years of Trajan, between A.D. 110 and 117, or possibly a few years later, A.D. 117 — 125, Chron. I. p. 406. The genuineness and date of Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians are virtually established when these points have been settled for the Epistles of Ignatius.
3 It should be observed, however, that Ignatius's language in one passage seems to suggest that the facts of the Gospel were accessible to him and to his readers in a written form, Ad Philad. ch. 5 ; see Lightfoot, in loc.
I 2
4 The character of the quotations
practice to quote sayings of Christ as being what He said, without specification of the record containing them. And to do so must have seemed specially natural to the generation to which Clement and Ignatius and Polycarp belonged. The first of these at least probably was, and the second may well have been, a full-grown man and a convert to Christianity before any one of the Gospels had been put forth. And the habits of thought engendered during a period of oral teaching must have continued even after written accounts began to be circulated. That which had been read would still be cited after the manner adopted when it used to be transmitted solely by word of mouth. It is not necessary, however, to insist on the force of this consideration. For in connexion with the numerous quotations from the Old Testament in the Epistle of Clement there are hardly any references to the books whence they were taken ; while they are frequently introduced as the words of God, or of the Spirit, and once of Christ " through the Holy Spirit1."
It is, however, further to be observed that the quotations of which we have been speaking do not, for the most part, correspond literally with any passages in our Gospels. But the want of perfect accuracy does not, any more than the absence of precise reference, preclude the possibility that they were taken from the Gospels. There was a very different standard in matters of quotation then, among classical as well as Christian writers, from that which exists at present. Books as they were ordinarily produced were not furnished with the means whereby references could be readily made. Fear of the labour that was likely to be involved in finding any particular passage would often induce men to rely on memory. It is also clear that the age cannot have set store by verbal exactness in quotation, since measures for facilitating it were not taken3. The Gospels were doubtless at first put forth in the same form as other books of the time, and the early Fathers were affected by the prevailing habits in respect to quotation. It may be
1 ch. 22 beginning. There are very few express quotations from the Old Testament in Epp. of Ignatius and Polycarp, so that we have in them no proper basis for a comparison.
8 See Additional Note I. p. 22 ff.
in early Christian writers 5
remarked that their quotations from the Old Testament are frequently inaccurate, and this is especially true of short ones. These would be far more difficult to find than long ones, without the aid of pages, or lines, numbered in the same way in different copies, or the division of the text into short sections1.
It is to be added that in Evangelic quotations we ought to be least of all surprised at divergences even from a record which has been in the main followed, owing to the existence of parallel accounts. And if the attempt was made to give the substance common to more than one of these, it would be suitable that no one of them should be expressly cited.
These are all considerations which clearly ought to be taken into account ; but it will be a question how far in each case they afford a sufficient explanation for differences from our Gospels.
In two passages of Clement's Epistle "the words" (<n \6yoi)z of Christ are expressly cited. In the first we have a
1 Dr Westcott (Canon, p. 129) has ppinted out in regard to Justin's quotations from O.T. that "the variations are most remarkable and frequent in short passages"; and he adds "that is exactly in those for which it would seem superfluous to unroll the MS. and refer to the original text." I have implied above, and have shewn in the Additional Note, p. 22 ff., that there was a further and perhaps even more important reason for the difference.
The same difference is noticeable in the Ep. of Clement. His long quotations from O.T. agree almost verbally with the LXX., and the discrepancies are of a kind which may be fairly attributed to variations of text, or to slight carelessness in transcription : — see chh. 4, ro (two passages occurring near together in Genesis, and each of some length), 15 (the second quotation), 16, 18, 22, 35, 39, 53, 56, 57. In ch. 12 he does seem to rely on his memory in reproducing a long narrative ; in ch. 8 he may be quoting from some source unknown to us (see Lightfoot in loc.). On the other hand nearly all his short quotations from O.T. are more or less decidedly inaccurate ; they frequently shew signs of the memory of one passage being affected by the memory of another. The few that are accurate are mainly from the Psalms (chh. 27 end, 46, 48, 50). The Book of Psalms would be specially familiar ; and from the shortness of most of the Psalms, passages could be more readily found in them than in other books.
2 It may be well to remind the reader that \6yos has not precisely the same force as "word" ordinarily has in English, "\6yos never means a word in the grammatical sense as the mere name of a thing or act (these being expressed by frros, oVoyua, p^/ua, Lat. vocabulnni), but rather a word as the thing referred to, the material not the formal part." Liddell and Scott.
6 The sayings of Christ
collection of precepts " on forbearance and longsuffering " — to employ Clement's own description1.
Thus He (the Lord* Jesus) spake: — S/iew mercy, that you may receive mercy; Forgive, that you may be forgiven; As you do, so stiall it be done to you; As you give, so shall it be given to you ; As you judge, so shall you be judged; As you are kind, so shall you be treated kindly; With what measure you measure, therewith shall it be measured to you.
Before we comment at all upon the form and connexion of these sayings in Clement, we will refer to the fact that a portion of the passage recurs in Polycarp's Epistle, though with some differences in the several clauses and in their order2, while the whole of it is given again, almost word for word as in the Roman Clement, in the Miscellanies of the Alexandrian Clement3. There are some parallelisms also with certain of the precepts in other later works4. Evidently the question of the origin of the peculiarities in the citation in Clement of Rome cannot be dissociated from that of their reappearance elsewhere.
Bishop Lightfoot is of opinion that " as Clement's quota- tions are often very loose " (he refers especially to those from the Old Testament) "we need not go beyond the Canonical Gospels for the source of this passage6." Accordingly he holds that where it is found in whole or in part in later writers, this is due to the recollection or the direct employ- ment of Clement's Epistle. That Polycarp, or the Church of Smyrna, should have possessed a copy is certainly not
1 Clem. Rom. ch. 13. In an Additional Note, p. 25 ff., I have endeavoured to bring out clearly both the resemblances to and differences from the Gospels in this and other passages of the Apostolic Fathers.
2 Ad Phil. ch. 2, see p. 16 and Additional Note II. p. 27.
3 Clem. Al. Strom. II. 18 (p. 476). The only differences are Aeerre for Aeare (which hardly deserves to be mentioned), and dfTi^er/)7;^(r6Tac for iv
4 See esp. Resch, Agrapha, p. 97, also Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt i, n. p. 52 n. Cp. p. 1 1 n. below.
8 See Lightfoot, /. c., also Pt 2, in. p. 325 n. to Ep. of Polycarp, ch. 2, end.
in the Epistle of Clement 7
improbable ; for it was customary, as an allusion in Poly- carp's own Epistle shews, for copies of the letters of eminent Christians to be sent to and treasured by others besides the Churches or persons to whom they were primarily addressed1. As for Clement of Alexandria, he repeatedly quotes from the writing before us, sometimes referring to it by name, some- times without mentioning the source. He evidently regarded it as having in some sense Apostolic authority ; and on one occasion he speaks of the author as Clement the Apostle2.
Much deference is due to the judgment of so great a scholar as Bp Lightfoot. Nevertheless it must be observed that there are marks of careful construction in the passage under consideration which render it improbable that the words can have been put together simply under the influence of the accidental associations of memory3. Further Clement's Epistle would be an unnatural place for subsequent writers to take Evangelic citations from, however much reverence they might feel for it, and however glad they might be to quote his own thoughts and exhortations and arguments4.
Were, then, the words quoted from some Gospel-record which was early in use and perhaps older than our Gospels ? The hypothesis of this nature most deserving of consideration is Resch's, that the source in all the cases in question was "the Logia," the document which is supposed to have been referred to by Papias and used in the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke. The phenomena brought to light by critical study of the Gospels, taken with the language of Papias, have at least rendered the existence of such a writing far more probable than that of any Apocryphal Gospel, in Greek at least, at this early time.
1 Ad Phil. ch. 13.
2 Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Ft i, I. pp. 158—160.
3 Cp. Sanday, Gospels in Second Century, p. 64 f., where also he shews that the comparison made by Lightfoot with Old Testament quotations is not here quite in point. See further below, pp. 9, 10 ; also what I have pointed out as to the nature of the relation in which Clement's passage stands to St Matthew and St Luke respectively, pp. 8, 12 and Additional Note n. p. 26.
4 The Evangelic precepts introduced by him might of course naturally be reproduced as parts of longer passages from his Epistle. But there is nothing in the contexts in Polycarp and Clement of Alexandria to remind us of that in Clement of Rome. Cp. Sanday, Expositor for June 1891, I. pp. 420—1.
8 The sayings of Christ
There are, however, grave difficulties in the way of our acceptance of this theory. It requires us to assume that a translation of " the Logia " had been made into Greek before Clement of Rome wrote, and that it continued to be read to the end of the second century and even later1. The words of Papias (as we shall presently see)2 do not encourage the idea that a regular Greek translation existed at any time. And we hear no more of the document. It would be strange, indeed, that if a distinct Greek translation of such an interesting and important work was in circulation, there should be no reference to it even on the part of those writers who made citations from it, to the end of the second century3.
Further, so far as we can form an idea of " the Logia " from our First and_ Third Gospels, the hypothesis that it supplied the passage in Clement affords only a partial ex- planation of the phenomena. Clement resembles the Gospel according to St Matthew most closely in respect to the Greek words used. The sayings, however, in St Matthew corre- sponding to those in Clement do not belong to one context, but are scattered through the Sermon on the Mount4. Even from this circumstance alone it is evident that we have not here merely two various renderings of one original. More- over, his differences from this Gospel in the construction of the sentences are such as would be caused by an effort after greater compression rather than by independent translation. On the other hand, there is considerable similarity as to general content and form between Clement's quotation and a short passage in St Luke, vi. 35 — 38, a similarity greater in the respects just indicated than that between either of
1 Agrapha, pp. 96 f., 136 ff.
2 See below, p. 55 ff.
3 Resch — who maintains that what he terms " genuine Agrapha " were derived from, or translations of, Hebrew Logia — is not quite explicit as to the extent to which the Fathers themselves who quote these Logia obtained them direct from such a Greek document. But in view more particularly of his language on pp. 80, 8 1 of Agrapha, I do not think he can imagine anything else, and so Sanday understands him (Inspiration, p. 300). It is obvious, at all events, that if the similarity between Clement of Alexandria and Clement of Rome in the present instance is to be explained by common derivation from "the Logia," it must have been from a Greek translation of it.
4 See Additional Note II. p. 25 f.
in the Epistle of Clement 9
these and any paragraph or portion of a paragraph of the Sermon on the Mount in St Matthew. There are, however, differences even in regard to these points between Clement and Luke. The order of sentences is not entirely the same, and a saying occurring at v. 31 in Luke occurs in Clement in the midst of those given later by the Evangelist. It is of more importance that there are some differences between them which are plainly not mere diversities of rendering. We may allow Resch's claim that Clement's a^tere Iva d<pedfj V/JLLV and Luke's d-rroXvere KOI a7ro\v6r)aecr6e should be regarded thus ; but the discrepancy of meaning between Clement's eXeare iva e\,€r)6fjT€ and Luke's ^LveaOe oiKripfjioves tcaOws 6 Trarrjp V^LWV oUripfLtov ea-riv, cannot be accounted for in this way ; nor can the similar discrepancy between Clement's &>? XP^~ a-reveade, OVTCOS xprja-revd^a-erat VJJLIV and Luke vi. 351.
An examination of the form of Clement's citation may give us a clue to a better explanation. Conciseness and similarity of rhythm appear to have been aimed at in the manner in which the sayings of which it is made up have been put together and moulded, as though with the object of assisting the memory. In each case the conduct enjoined comes first and is followed by the mention of an appropriate reward which will be gained through practising the precept2. It must be added that the effect of the passage taken as a
1 See Additional Note n. p. -26.
2 Dr Sanday pointed out such characteristics in his Gospels in the Second Century (1876), pp. 64, 65. "It will not fail to be noticed," he there writes, "that the passage as it stands in Clement has a roundness, a compactness, a balance of style, which give it an individual and independent appearance. Fusions effected by an unconscious process of thought are, it is true, sometimes marked by this completeness; still there is a difficulty in supposing the terse antithesis of the Clementine version to be derived from the fuller, but more lax and discon- nected sayings in our Gospels." He quotes this passage again Expositor, 1891, I. p. 419.
In Inspiration (1893), p. 300, he further suggests, no doubt on the ground of those features described in the passage of his earlier work just quoted, that one element,, in the process, by which the piece of teaching we are discussing was shaped, was the influence of catechizing. He speaks of it as "a small addition " to the theories of Lightfoot and Resch. I think that in his modesty he attributes too little importance to it. One could wish that it had fallen within the limits of his plan to discuss the different theories, which he holds to be "not mutually exclusive," in their bearing upon each other.
io The sayings of Christ
whole differs somewhat from that of the corresponding- teaching of the Gospels ; the morality is of a less exalted character. The prospect of recompense, which is, indeed, held out in them also, is in the compendium in Clement more pointedly insisted on, while other considerations, which in the Gospels have a prominent place, are passed over. The spirit of the Master has not been so fully caught ; the temptation has been yielded to of emphasizing unduly the motive which would appeal most powerfully to ordinary minds.
In all this we trace the influence of the requirements and the dangers of oral teaching1. Clement, then, we may believe, was already familiar with this piece of teaching, in the shape in which he gives it, through the catechetical instruction which he had received and taken part in. The correspondences in Polycarp may well be due to the same cause.
It is, however, hardly possible that the whole passage given in the former should have been preserved orally with so much accuracy, to the time of Clement of Alexandria. On the other hand, it is not at all inconceivable that this little body of precepts, after having been commonly taught in the manner suggested, should have been included in some manual like the Didache, which in point of fact contains similar compendia. This would be the natural receptacle for it, rather than an Apocryphal Gospel, which would not, so far as we can judge from such knowledge of Apocryphal Gospels as we possess, be likely to have given a concise statement of this kind, or one agreeing on the whole so nearly with our Canonical Gospels. Nor should it be thought a serious objection that no book of instruction still exists, or is named, so far as we can say, in which the summary in question had a place. A collection of rules for Christian life and worship was peculiarly liable to be superseded, or to be greatly altered and expanded, with a view to meeting the needs of various localities or changes of opinion and organisation in the Church at large. The relations to one another of the Didache and of later works of the same type, the various forms of the
1 Similar effects may be observed in the Didache : — i. 2, the substitution of a negative for a positive injunction, ib, 3 dyairare TOVS fuffovvras vfj.as Kal ot>x ^£e r€ t ib. 4 lav \dfir) rts airb ffov rb a&v, /JLJ] airalref ov5e yap dvvaffai.
in the Epistle of Clement n
Apostolical Ordinances, and the Apostolical Constitutions, illus- trate this. As the authority of the Canonical Gospels came to be more completely established and they became more fully known, there would be a disposition — to note only one point with which we are specially concerned — both to quote from them more largely and to assimilate the language of any precepts of Christ that were cited more fully to theirs, or to substitute others taken from them. The operation of this cause may be traced in the successive works above mentioned; and we shall see a clear example of it in comparing the quota- tion in Polycarp's Epistle with the corresponding one by Clement. In the Didache we shall observe a larger- amount of parallelism with the Gospels than in the Lord's words given in Clement and Polycarp ; and this, too, may in reality be an illustration of the tendency to which I have referred. That is to say, the Didache itself may, perhaps, not be the earliest writing of its kind, or (shall we say ?) not, as we have it, the earliest edition of the work. A kindred work, or a more primitive form of this one, which may have continued in use for a century or more in some quarters, may have contained the piece of teaching which we are discussing, and may have been the source whence it was taken by the Alexandrian Clement, and perhaps, also, by Polycarp, if not by the Roman Clement himself. It is possible, also, to account satisfactorily in this way for the other instances of sayings similar in form1. It should especially be remarked that the most considerable ones are to be found in the Apostolical Constitutions and the closely related Didascalia\ that is to say, these relics have
1 The passages are,
(a) Const. Aposl. n. 21, p. 40 (Lagarde's edition), 656s 8t etprjvrjs iarlv 6 ffwriip TJ/JI.&V 'iTjtroGs 6 X/)i(TT6y, 6$ KCU e5£5a£ej/ Tj/xas \tyuv a^ere KO.I d^e^Tjaerai v/juv' SiSore Kai So^crerai V/JLW (cp. Didasc. II. 21, p. 251 in Analecta Ante-JVicena, ed. Bunsen).
(b) Const. Apost. II. 42, p. 70, on \£yei 6 Kifynos* $ Kpifj-art Kplvere, Kpifftf- <reff0e, ical u»$ KaraSiKcif-eTe KaradiKaadrifffffGe (cp. Didasc. II. 42, p. 269).
The two passages in the Didascalia are practically the same as those in the Constitutions.
The two remaining instances are in Macarius, Horn. 37, 3, ap. Galland vn. p. 128 /cantos evereiXaro a0ere /cat d0e#77<reTcu vfjuv ; and Ps. Ign. ad Trail. 8 a0ere yap, <t>T/l<riv 6 Ktfptos •rjfj.&v, /cat d0e077<reTai vfuv.
12 The sayings of Christ
survived just in the places where we might have expected to find them according to the theory here propounded.
We will now go back and ask, as our final question, What lay behind the catechetical inculcation of this form ? Whence was the subject-matter derived? What besides the natural tendencies of the catechist had determined its shape ?
We have said that our piece of teaching most closely resembles St Luke in outline and St Matthew in phraseology. But it is inconceivable that a compiler should of set purpose have combined the two Gospels in this particular way. Pro- vided, however, that the outline had been determined by some independent cause, reminiscences of the words of similar sayings in St Matthew might well in a shorter or longer time have affected the language. If, as some students of the Synoptic Problem think, the disposition of matter in " the Logia" is most truly represented in St Luke, then the con- tents and arrangement of our passage may be derived after all from a written fragment of the Logia in Greek or from extemporary oral translation of it by Jewish converts who knew Hebrew as well as Greek. But the oral teaching given in Rome, or one type of it, whether it corresponded with the form of " the Logia " or not, is perhaps on the whole a more likely source.
The words and expressions which coincide with those in St Matthew may of course have belonged to the original oral teaching, too. Still there is some ground for tracing them to knowledge of St Matthew, for there are other parallelisms with this Gospel in Clement's Epistle which (or some of which) more distinctly suggest acquaintance with it.
But whatever the history of the piece may be, it must certainly, in view of the more uniform and restricted character of its appeals, be pronounced less fresh and true as a presen- tation of the Master's teaching, than those which correspond to it in St Matthew and St Luke.
The few remaining points which have to be noticed in Clement's Epistle will not detain us long. In the only other instance in which he expressly cites the Lord's words1 he
1 ch. 46.
ic Epistle of Clement 13
gives the substance of the warning against causing offence contained in Mt. xviii. 6, 7, and to a considerable extent in the same language. The unusual word KaTaTrovTicrQrjvai used by Clement and occurring in St Matthew, but not in the parallels in St Mark and St Luke, should specially be observed. Further Clement's variations from the passage in St Matthew just referred to are easily explicable. A phrase is introduced from another passage in the same Gospel where a woe is pronounced, while there is an inversion of clauses, so that the order becomes the same as in St Luke. These are differences which might easily arise from slight confusions in the memory. He also substitutes "mine elect" for "these little ones," and " pervert " for " cause offence " on the second occurrence of that word, not improbably with the object of making the meaning of the saying plainer. This fusion of quotation and exegesis may not accord with modern ideas of critical method, but it was convenient and we can well understand it.
We have yet to mention two parallelisms with the Gospel accg to St Matthew where there is no express reference to Christ's teaching. In ch. 24 he employs the first words of the Parable " of the Sower, " the Sower went forth," which occur of course in all three Synoptics. Once more, in ch. 16 end, he uses language in which it is difficult not to recognise an allusion to the great saying in Mt. xi. 29. " Ye see, dearly beloved," writes Clement, " what is the pattern that hath been given unto us ; for if the Lord was thus lowly in mind (OVTOX; eTaTreivo^povrja-ev, cp. raTreti/o? rfj Kapbla) what should we do, who through him have been brought under the yoke of his grace ? " (rov ^vyov rrjs %dpiTo<> avrov). There are no cor- respondences with the Gospel accg to St Luke to be noticed in Clement, besides those which have come before us already. But a presumption in favour of acquaintance with the Third Gospel may be created by signs of acquaintance with the Acts of the Apostles, on account of the close connexion between these two works, and one or two such can be pointed out in Clement's Epistle. One trait in the character which Clement exhorts his readers to aim at is that of "being more glad to give than to receive" (ch. 2, cp. Acts xx. 35). Again his description of the Apostles' fulfilment of their mission
14 Parallelisms with St Matthew
(ch. 42) might well have been moulded on passages of the Acts.
We pass now to the Epistles of Ignatius. The only actual citation which he makes of words of Christ appears to be taken from some source other than our Gospels. " When he came," Ignatius writes (Ad Smyrn. ch. 3), "to Peter and his company, he said to them, Take hold, and handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal demon." The sense is the same as that of Luke xxiv. 39 £, but the phraseology is markedly different both from that of this passage and of the Canonical Gospels generally1. There is also no precedent in the Gospels for the expression " Peter and his company." Origen (De Princ. praef. ch. 8) refers to the latter part of this saying. He is confuting an erroneous view which had been based on the application of the word " incorporeal." He does not mention Ignatius ; but he points out that the words are not found in any one of the Canonical Gospels, and says that they are contained in " the little book called the Doctrine of Peter" Jerome, however (De Vir. Illustr. ch. 16, on Ignatius), asserts that it was quoted from the Gospel which he himself had lately translated, i.e. the Gospel accg to the Hebrews (ib. ch. 3).
Origen and Jerome were both right, we may believe, as to the places where they had met with the saying. But we shall see before we have concluded the investigations in this volume that the latter of these two works is far more likely, as the more ancient and the more highly esteemed, to have been the true source than the former. We shall also indeed see that probably no Greek version of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews existed before Jerome's time ; but portions of it may have been communicated both to Ignatius and the author of the Doctrine of Peter by means of oral translation from the Hebrew. Or, again, Ignatius may have learned the saying thus, and the author of the Doctrine of Peter have obtained it from him. Once more, it is possible that, as Bp Lightfoot suggests, it may have passed independently from oral
1
1 Notice both the word dffti/iaroi', incorporeal, and the use of daifj.6viov in a good, or neutral, sense, whereas in our Gospels it is always used in a bad sense.
in the Epistles of Ignatius 15
tradition into the pages of Ignatius, and into that recension of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews which Jerome knew1.
Ignatius makes another reference to the Gospel history which appears to have a legendary character2. Speaking of the star whereby Christ was manifested, he says that it out- shone all the other stars, and that all the rest of the constella- tions together with the Sun and the Moon formed themselves into a chorus about it. This description differs markedly from the simple narrative of St Matthew. It is unlikely that Ignatius is merely giving the rein to his imagination. We may conjecture that he had obtained the idea from the same source, whatever that was, as the words of the risen Christ which have just been discussed.
Nevertheless the Epistles of Ignatius contain clear signs of acquaintance with our first Gospel. The following are specially striking. He writes that Jesus was baptized by John " in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him3," in strict accordance with the saying at Mt. iii. 15. Again, he twice applies the description given of the Pharisees by Christ, which is recorded only Mt. xv. 13, to false teachers; they are not, he says, " the planting of the Father " (^vreia Trarpo?)4. Once more, he writes to Polycarp, " be thou prudent as the serpent in all things, and guileless always as the dove5." In both the last instances the language gains greatly in force through its allusiveness, which we are entitled to assume, to sayings in the Gospels. The adaptation of the well-known precept, addressed originally by Christ to the Twelve on sending them forth (Mt. x. 16), to a Christian bishop of the next generation, by the change of the plural into the singular, and the introduction of the words " in all things " and "always," is peculiarly telling6.
There are no indications of the use of the second and third Synoptics in the Epistles of Ignatius. We will defer the consideration of the parallelisms with the Fourth Gospel till
1 Ap. Frs, Pt 2, ii. in loc. 2 Ad Ephes. ch. 19.
3 Ad Smyrn. ch. i.
4 Ad Trail, ch. n ; Ad Philad. ch. 3. 5 ch. 2.
6 For the words of the original and for one or two other parallelisms with St Matthew see Additional Note n. p. 27 f.
1 6 Parallelisms with the Synoptics
after we have examined those with the Synoptics in the Epistle of Polycarp.
We have referred to the fact that Polycarp's letter con- tains a summary of a portion of the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount which corresponds in part to one in Clement's. It runs as follows :
Remembering the words which tJte Lord spake, as He taugJit ;
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Forgive, and it shall be forgiven to you.
Shew mercy, that you, may receive mercy.
With what measure you measure, it shall be measured to you again.
And that,
Blessed are the poor and they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God1.
After our full discussion of the similar passage in Clement it will suffice here to notice the points in respect of which Polycarp agrees more closely with our Gospels, and which seem to shew plainly that if he had either Clement's quota- tion, or the source from which it was taken, in mind, he has in reproducing it been influenced consciously or unconsciously by his recollection of one or more of the Gospels.
The injunction not to judge others is given precisely in the same form as in St Matthew, and it has been brought to the front just as in that Gospel it begins a fresh passage. In the second sentence in Polycarp, the two parts are coupled together by a conjunction, a form in which many of the precepts in both St Matthew and St Luke are cast, but which is not used at all in Clement. In the fourth the same compound word is used as in the corresponding saying in Luke (vi. 38^), according to the best supported reading. Most important of all, Polycarp, as it were with the view of supplementing the previously made compendium, adds the first and the eighth of the Beatitudes, compressing them into one, which it was the more easy to do because in St Matthew
1 Ad Phil. ch. 2. For Greek see Additional Note n. p. 27.
in the Epistle of Poly carp 17
they have the same termination. With St Luke, however, he omits "in spirit" after "poor," and employs the phrase "king- dom of God " for " kingdom of heaven."
In one other passage, also, Polycarp cites a saying of Christ. He exhorts his readers to entreat " the all-seeing God with supplications that He 'bring us not into tempta- tion,' according as the Lord said, ' The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak '." These last words are given in Mt. xxvi. 41, as also in Mk xiv. 38, but not in St Luke. The clause of the Lord's Prayer referred to is the same both in St Matthew and St Luke.
In one place Polycarp applies to our Lord the description "servant of all" found exactly in St Mark alone (ix. 35). This is the only distinct instance of parallelism with this Gospel in the writings of the three Apostolic Fathers. In a few cases, indeed, the words which have been adduced as probably taken from St Matthew are likewise in St Mark ; but the former must be regarded as the more probable source, because the evidence of its being in use is on the whole so much stronger. It is, indeed, the only one of the Synoptic Gospels, the signs of the use of which in the Sub-apostolic Age are really impressive. When we pass on in the next chapter to examine the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles we shall find there striking parallels with St Luke. But quota- tions from, or traces of acquaintance with, St Matthew continue to be by far the most abundant throughout the second quarter and the middle of the second century ; while the traces of St Mark are very meagre. It is natural that it should be so, in spite of the fact that, as may be inferred from the internal criticism of the Gospels, our second Gospel was put forth earlier than either St Matthew in its present shape or St Luke. For nearly the whole of St Mark is in substance contained in St Matthew, and most of it in St Luke, while in these Gospels other matter of surpassing interest is given also. Until men learnt to compare the Gospels somewhat carefully with one another and to notice individual traits in each, and began to appreciate the importance of such study, which they could not be expected to do at first, they would have little reason for turning to St Mark at all, if they possessed St Matthew.
S. G. 2
1 8 The Apostolic Fathers
St Mark may even have been rarely copied1. If we may assume here the truth of the view that St Mark, or a docu- ment resembling it, is one of the sources of both the other two Synoptics, which, as is well known, is now widely held by those who have studied the Synoptic Problem, we may con- jecture that the writers of our first and third Gospels embodied the subject-matter of St Mark with other records, with the express intention of meeting a demand for a fairly complete, serviceable, account of the Teaching and Works of Jesus Christ. Nor is it difficult to suggest reasons why our first Gospel should have been a special favourite. It gave the popular teaching of Christ massed in a way that made it peculiarly impressive ; it dwelt also in a marked manner on the fulfilment of prophecy. If further the name of the Apostle Matthew was already connected with it, there was in this an additional ground for preference. Next to it, the value of St Luke would be most readily perceived on account of the many precious sayings and narratives which were here alone preserved.
We turn, lastly, to enquire whether, and if so how far, the Epistles of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp afford evidence of the existence of the Fourth Gospel and of its recognition by the Church. The first of these writers gives no clear sign that he knew this Gospel2; but that fact is not incompatible with its having been composed by the Apostle John and put forth in his life-time, if the tradition which was believed by Irenaeus and other writers belonging to the latter part of the second century was true, that he lived till the times of Trajan (who
1 Mr Burkitt has pointed out ( Two Lectures on the Gospels, p. 33) that in order to explain the fact that the Gospel according to St Mark has come down to us with the original narrative broken off at xvi. 8, and a conclusion evidently supplied to fill up a lacuna, we must suppose that all our copies are ultimately descended from a single mutilated copy. And he adds "A Gospel which survives in a single imperfect copy must have been, at least for a time, out of fashion." I think it would probably be a little more correct to say that it "came only slowly into circulation." But at all events, comparatively few copies can have been in existence. Mr Burkitt's argument confirms and is confirmed by the evidence to which I have drawn attention.
2 It should be remarked, however, that the thought at the beginning of Clem, ad Cor. ch. 42, concerning the relation between the Mission of the Apostles from Christ, and of Christ from God, corresponds closely with the saying at Jn xx. 21.
and the Fourth Gospel 19
became Emperor A.D. 98). Even if we suppose that his Gospel first began to circulate in Asia Minor some five or six years before this, a copy might well not have reached Rome in time for Clement to have become familiar with it when he wrote his Epistle in A.D. 95 or 96. While if the Gospel accg to St John was first given to the Church after his death by companions and disciples, as we may infer to have been the case from its last chapter, Clement's ignorance of it would be perfectly explicable even on the assumption that St John did not live quite so long as in after times he was said to have done.
With Ignatius and Polycarp the case is different. When they wrote sufficient time had unquestionably elapsed for them to have become acquainted with the work, if it was by the Apostle John. Moreover, the former of them was writing from, and in most of his Epistles addressing the Churches of, a region where, according to the tradition preserved in Irenaeus and other writers to whom I have alluded, St John lived and exercised great influence during the closing years of his life, while Polycarp had been one of his hearers. Here then, on the assumption of the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, we may certainly expect to find indications of its use. And such do not seem to me to be altogether wanting, although they are not so full and clear as might have been expected.
Ignatius writes to the Romans (ch. 7) : " My lust hath been crucified, and there is no fire of material longing in me, but only water living and speaking in me, saying within me, Come to the Father." This may justly be regarded as an interpretation and application of the saying to the woman of Samaria (Jn iv. 10), effected through combining it with the teaching in other parts of the same Gospel concerning Christ's own mission to make known and to bring men to the Father (Jn xvii. 6; xiv. 6 etc.), and with its language regarding the Spirit, who is " the living water " (Jn vii. 38, 39) and whose office it is to carry on the work of Christ (Jn xvi. 8 f. etc.). Again, to the Philadelphians (ch. 7) he writes : " For even though certain persons desired to deceive me after the flesh, yet the spirit is not deceived, being from God ; for it knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth." It is natural in this passage
2 — 2
20 The Apostolic Fathers
to see an allusion to our Lord's words to Nicodemus (Jn iii. 8).
In the brief Epistle of Polycarp, where so many phrases are introduced from various Epistles of St Paul and from St Peter1, there is also a sentence which must, assuredly, have been taken from a passage in the First Epistle of St Jo/in, though the latter is slightly condensed. "Everyone," he writes, " who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist2." We are enquiring, it is true, after traces of the influence of the Gospel accg to St John\ but clear parallelisms with the First Epistle are not beside our purpose. These two writings are so closely connected in their style and teaching, that evidence in regard to one of them bears on the position of the other. In the latter portion of another sentence of Polycarp — in the first part of which he employs the words of St Paul — there are several points which remind us of various passages in the Gospel and the First Epistle of St John : " He that raised him from the dead will raise us also; if we do his will and walk in his commandments and love the things which he loved3." In two other places his language resembles that of a passage in the Third Epistle of John*.
The case as regards the evidence of acquaintance with the Gospel accg to St John supplied by the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp stands thus. Taken by itself it is inconclusive. In the former writer it is somewhat indeterminate ; his Johannine expressions might possibly have been derived from the phraseology of a school. In Polycarp on the other
1 The only writing expressly referred to by Polycarp throughout is St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, the Church which he was himself addressing (ch. 3), and this one he does not mention at the places (chh. 9 and 12 end) where he appears to quote from it.
2 Polyc. ad Phil. ch. 7 was ydp, 6s &v /ULT) o/j.o\oyfi 'Ir)<rovv XpKTTbv tv vapid £\T)\v6ti>ai, di>Tlxpi<rTfa iffTtv. Cf. I Jn iv. 2, 3.
3 Polyc. ad Phil. ch. 2 £av Troiu/j.ev avrov rb 6^\ijfj.a frai wopevw/mfda tv rats (vro\als O.VTOU /cai ayairuntv a -f)ydirr)<7ev. Cf. Jn vii. 17, xiv. 15; i Jn ii. 17, 6, v. I, 2.
4 Compare awt~)(o.f>'r\v vi&v fj.eyd\us tv Kvply TJ(J,UI> 'Irjffov X/jttrr^, 8ei;a/j.{i>ois rd fj,ifj.r)/j.a.Ta 777? aX7?0oCs dyairtjs KCU Trpoir^fj.\f/a<TLv etc. (Polyc. ch. r) and in vcritate sociati (ch. 10), with the ^x^/"?"> irpovtfjL^as and vvvfpyol ry d\r}0flqi of 3 Jn 3 — 8, and the general tenor of that passage.
and the Fourth Gospel 21
hand the evidence is partly indeterminate, partly indirect. Neither can fairly be reckoned a witness adverse to the existence at this time of the Fourth Gospel or the recognition of its Johannine authorship, and this is in itself important. On the contrary the phenomena that we have noted point to acquaintance with it, but we cannot feel confident that they may not be due to some other cause, so long at least as we confine our attention to the Sub-apostolic Age1. The decision between alternative explanations must come, if it is to come at all, from the position which the Gospel holds and the strength of the tradition in its favour, which we shall observe later. These may render it highly probable that the corre- spondences with its thought and language in the very early writings which we have now been considering should be put to the account of its use. And the grounds for believing that our first Gospel was already in use at this time are not essentially different. The signs of its use are indeed more distinct, but they would hardly suffice to establish the point apart from its probability independently.
1 See further pp. 165-6, 235-7, on the absence of direct allusions to the Apostle John in the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp. The question considered in the present chapter is simply whether in the language of these writings there are indications of the influence of the Fourth Gospel.
ADDITIONAL NOTE I. TO CHAPTER I.
THE FORM OF ANCIENT BOOKS AS AFFECTING HABITS OF QUOTATION.
i. The only kind of division of the subject-matter which was ever common in Greek and Roman Literature even to the sixth century A.D. was " the book," in the sense of a portion of a larger work. The book in this sense, as the names for it in Greek and Latin (/3i'/3Xos and /3t/3Xi'oi>, volumen, also later and more rarely rd/ioy) imply, corresponded originally and normally with the contents of a roll. (See Birt, Antike Buchwesen esp. chh. 3, 5 and 7, comparing Bergk, Griechische Literaturgeschichte I. p. 226 f.) For the most part works which could be comprised within a roll of moderate proportions — as for example most of Plato's Dialogues and even the longer writings of the New Testament could be — had no divisions, and larger works no lesser ones. Only in the case of works of a few authors do we hear of chapters or headings (K€0aXuia, capita, also called Tt'rXot) which served to break up the text into portions. The scholiasts and commentators upon Aristotle speak of such in his treatises. In the main this evidence belongs to the third and following centuries A.D. ; but the divisions in question may, at least in some instances, have been early introduced and traditionally preserved. Yet they do not seem to have been employed in all his works. The Constitution of Athens, in the recently recovered papyrus MS. of it, is without them (see Kenyon's ed. p. xviii.). Moreover, so far as I have observed, the scholiasts and commentators themselves, though they mention chapters when discussing the question how a treatise should be analysed, rarely refer to statements, opinions or words as contained in such and such a chapter. Commonly they give only the philosopher's name, or the treatise, or book of the treatise, with an indication sometimes that the passage will be found near the beginning, or the end, of a treatise, or book. In writers earlier than the fourth century A.D. this vague mode of reference is, I believe, universal. Moreover, the works other than those of Aristotle, which were divided into chapters, seem to have been chiefly those which consisted of a series of articles, such as collections of marvellous stories, books on Natural History and Botany, medical, and probably also legal, books. Clement of Alexandria (circ. A.D. 200) also seems to have divided his
Form of ancient books 23
Miscellanies into chapters. " Let this second Miscellany," he writes at the close of the second book, "here terminate on account of the length and number of the chapters." The only instance of a reference to a numbered chapter appears to be that in Cassiodorus (Lib. Lit. ch. 3, Migne, vol. LXX. col. 1204) to "the ninth chapter of the first book of ^^Antiquities of Josephus." These numbers may have been inserted in the Latin trans- lation which Cassiodorus himself caused to be made (Div. Lit. ch. 17, Migne, ib. col. 1133). [For the instances given, see Bergk, ib. p. 233, Birt, ib. p. 157. To the examples of works with headings quoted by these writers, Dioscorides on Plants and Roots may be added, see Palaeo- graphical Society's Publications, I. plate 177. On the other hand, they are both, I believe, in error when they state that Symmachus' copy of Seneca had chapters. The reference to Seneca by Migne (ap. Symm. Ep. x. 27), or some other editor, introduced within a bracket, has, it would seem, been mistaken for part of Symmachus' text. Of the employ- ment of any subdivisions of chapters there is no trace whatever. The word Tfiq/ua (section) is indeed used, but only as an equivalent for xe^aXatoi'.]
But passages in a book may be referred to by other means than divisions made according to the sense. We cite often by the page. It does not, however, seem to have been customary to number the pages of the MSS. of literary works in ancient times, and references are never given thus. There would be obvious difficulties in the way of doing so, since different scribes would bring a different amount into a page, and after several pages the discrepancy might be serious. It would be possible, also, to place numbers in the margin, which even in prose-works might correspond with some definite number of lines in a standard copy. The lengths of prose works, as well as of poems, were actually specified by the numbers of lines they contained, some standard plainly being assumed. But the purpose of so measuring seems in general to have been either to fix the price which should be paid for the labours of the copyist, or to indicate the extent of an author's works on account of the biographical interest which such a fact had. But the affixing of a series of successive numbers to small portions of the text in accordance with some standard copy or standard length of line was certainly rare, and it is doubtful whether it was ever done. [Cp. Bergk, ib. p. 230-1; Birt, ib. p. I58ff. esp. pp. 175-7.] Birt seems to me to misinterpret somewhat the evidence afforded by the few cases in which some use is made of numbers of lines as a means of indicating the places where passages could be found, and in particular the references in Annotations of Five of Cicero's Orations by Asconius Pedianus (B.C. 2 — A.D. 83). Even these do not prove that he could rely on there being corresponding numbers in the copies of this much studied author which his readers would have. He always prefixes " circa" to these numbers — about so many lines from the first, or the last. It is true the numbers are not all strictly speaking round numbers. He says not only "about 300," "about 600," but "about 620," "about 640." But it should be remembered that when, for instance, " about 620" follows " about 600," the reader after having found the earlier words indicated
24 Form of ancient books
would easily find the next by counting 20 lines, in which amount there would not be room for a serious difference. Further Asconius also uses the following expressions, — "about the middle," "about the third part from the beginning," or again, "after two parts of the speech," and "after three parts"; and several times after giving a reference in one of the ways that have been mentioned he introduces the next passage of which he wishes to speak with the words "a little afterwards," and the intervals thus described vary considerably ; they must have extended in some cases to several columns of a MS. It is manifest that he would not have spoken thus, if he could readily have given some precise number.
2. Let us turn now to the Scriptures. We hear of chapters in the Old and New Testaments from Clement of Alexandria (Strom, I. xxi. p. 409) and Tertullian (Ad Uxorem, ii. 2) respectively. But perhaps we ought not to infer from these allusions that the New Testament was even in their time systematically divided throughout (cp. Scrivener, Introduc- tion to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed. p. 58). Nevertheless it is very possible that divisions had been already introduced because of the great value they would have in connexion with public reading in the congregation, as shewing where the reader should begin and end. And divisions may well have been made some time before in the LXX. to facilitate its use in the synagogues of the Hellenistic Jews, and this would have furnished a precedent. A regular cycle of lessons could not, of course, be established apart from such divisions in the text. The words of Justin Martyr render it difficult to suppose that a cycle existed in his day; he speaks of the reading in the Christian assemblies continuing " so long as there is time," /xe'xpiy e'yxupc? (Apol. i. 67). But, as I have said, chapters would be useful in public reading even before the adoption of a cycle. The Gospels were also broken up into sections with a view to the comparison of the parallel passages in different Gospels. Some have supposed that, soon after the middle of the second century, Tatian made sections when constructing his Diatessaron\ in any case Ammonius virtually did so in the next century, whether he numbered his sections or not (cp. Scrivener, ib. p. 59 f.).
It is possible, then, that by the middle of the second century, or a little later, divisions of some kind had been made in the text of the Gospels ; but we should certainly not be justified in supposing that any existed earlier than this.
3. For the purpose of comparison with the early Fathers in respect to habits of quotation no writings could be more suitable than the Moral Essays of Plutarch. They abound in quotations from prose authors, more especially Plato, and Plutarch was a contemporary of the Roman Clement. He stayed and lectured in Rome when Clement was the chief personage in the Christian Church there. Plutarch unquestionably knew his Plato well, and he frequently quotes striking expressions and sentences from
Form of ancient books 25
him with accuracy. Nevertheless there are not a few indications that he usually quotes from memory.
It is hardly necessary to point out that a distinction should be made between the amount of accuracy to be expected in quoting prose and verse. Verse is more easily remembered, and the learning of portions of the poets by heart formed a considerable part of education. Yet even quotations from the poets in ancient writers are often inaccurate, or differ at all events from our text of them.
ADDITIONAL NOTE II. TO CHAPTER I.
THE PARALLELISMS WITH THE GOSPELS IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
I have in this Additional Note given the Greek of the parallelisms referred to above, and have also in some cases examined them more fully.
i. Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
(a) Ch. xiii. I b and 2. p.d\i(TTa p,ep.VT]p.(voi ra>i> Aoycoi/ TOV Kvpiov 'lijcrov, ovs fXdXrjcrev diddcrnwv
KCU p,aKpodvp,iav ourcoy yo-p tMFtV e'Xeare tva eXcrjdrJTf, ......................................................... (l)
d(pi€T( iva d(f)(df) vp.1v ...................................................... (2)
a>s Troteire, ovrto Troir/^trerai vp.lv ....................................... (3)
vTtos 8odrj(T€Tai vp.1v .......................................... (4)
OVT&S Kpi6r)(Tf(rd€- ............................................. (5)
VTfOS Xpr](TT€vdf)(T€Tai Vp.1v ........................... (6)
eo /Lte'rpo) jLierpelre, eV CLVTM p.erpr)6r](reTai vp.1v ............................ (7)
(1) Cp. Mt. V. 7 p*aKapioi ol e\er)p.oves, OTI avrol e\(T)0r)crovTai. €\ee1v occurs again in a very similar saying at Mt. xviii. 33 but not in any like saying in Mk or Lu. But Cp. Lu. vi. 36 yLvea-Be oiKripp-oves icadus 6 iraTTjp vp.S)v OLKTipp.<i)v eVrtV.
(2) Puts briefly the double saying in Mt. vi. 14, 15 eav yap d<pr)Tc TOIS dvdpooTTOis TO. TraparrTO)p.aTa avrSbv, d<pr)(T€i KCU vp.1v 6 jrarrfp vp.wv 6 ovpdvios' eav Se p.r) d(pf]T€ TOLS avdpatrrois TO. TrapairTU>p.aTa avrwv, ovde 6 Trarrjp vp-utv d<pt](Tfi TO. TrapaTrrco/iara vp.(&v.
There is a similar saying in Mk xi. 25. Cp. Lu. vi. 37 b diroXverf KOI
(3) Cp. Mt. vii. 12 a irdvra ovv oara eav 0€\r)T€ iva TTOIOHTIV vp.1v ol av^pcoTrot, oura)p K.OL vpcls Troielre avToiy, and Lu. vi. 31 K Iva TTOiaxriv vp.1v ol avdpaiTroi, rroLelre avrois o/iot'tos1.
26 Parallelisms with the Gospels
(4) Cp. Lu. VI. 38 a 5i'8oTf KOI fiotf^o-erai vp.lv.
(5) Cp. Mt. vii. I fir) npiveTf Iva p.T) npidfJTC, or Lu. vi. 37 a p-T) KpivfTC Kal ov p.f) <pidfJT€.
(6) Cp. Lu. vi. 35, where we are exhorted to imitate God, and He is said to be xp^oroy. This epithet is not applied to God in Mt.
(7) Almost exactly as in Mt. vii. 2 and Lu. vi. 38 b.
"The form of the first two of these clauses — "shew pity in order that ye may be pitied, forgive in order that it may be forgiven to you" — is the same as that of Mt. vii. i a. The form of the next three clauses — O>S...OVT<I) (or OVTUS) — is not found exactly in either Mt. or Lu. ; but we have Kada>s at beginning of sentence in Lu. vi. 31 with 6p.oiW at end; and OVTWS in middle at Mt. vii. 12 a. Note that the parallels in Luke all occur in Lu. vi. 31 and 35 — 38. In St Matthew they are scattered.
(6) Ch. xlvi. 7 b and 8. \ivj]<jBr]Tf T£>V \6y<i)v 'lr)o~ov TOV Kup/ou fjpwv flirfv ydp- oval ro> ai>$pa>7TG>
€K€LV(f KO\OV TfV OUTO) fl OVK fyCWTjOr), T) fVCL TO)V fK\€KTO)V fAOV (TKai>8aAt(Tai'
Kpelrrov rjv avT<p irfptTedrjvai p.v\ov Kal KaraTrovTKrdfjvai els rrjv 6d\a<T(rav,
T) fVa TtOV €K\€KToi)V fiOV
The purport of the saying is the same as of that at Mt. xviii. 6, 7, Lu. xvii. i 6, 2, Mk ix. 42. It is nearest in form to Mt. xviii. 6, 7 os 5' av <TKav8a\i(rr] eva TU>V piKpav TOVTW TO)V TricrTtvovTW els f/xe, <rvp.<p€p(i avrw iva f) p.v\os OVIKOS irepl TOV rpa^rfKov avrov KCU KaTcnrovTio-dfj ev r<a rf/s 6a\d(T(rT)s. Oval r<u KOO-/IO) OTTO TCOV (r<av8d\o)v dvdy<r] yap e\6flv TO. (TKavSaXa, ir\f)v oval rw dvdpwTra) fit' ov TO (TKavfiaXov ep^frai. We have here the unusual word KaTairovTio-6fj which does not occur in the other Gospels. We have also a woe pronounced on the man who causes offence, which is not included in the parallel in Mk. This woe is, however, placed at the beginning in Clernent, at the end in Mt. In this respect Clement resembles Luke. But, further, the woe is amplified after the manner of the saying about the traitor in the form that it has in Mt. xxvi. 24 and Mk xiv. 21.
ra>v fKXfKTuv pov is substituted for T&V p.iKp£>v TOVTUV T&V rrurrtvovrav (Is ffie : f<\€KToi is a not uncommon word in the Synoptic Gospels. 8iao-Tpt<p(iv is used in much the same sense as it has in Clement at Acts xiii. 8, 10.
(*) Parallelisms of language where there is no express reference to Christ's teaching.
With Clem. xvi. 17 ei yap 6 Kvpios OVTUS (Tairfivo<pp6vr)o-(v, ri TTOIJJ- o~(op,(v T)p.(ls ol vTTo TOV £vyov TTjs \dpiTos avTov 81 avTov (\66vTfs; compare Mt. xi. 29 apaTf TOV £vyov p.ov ...... ort irpavs dpi teal Tairtivos etc.
At Clem. xxiv. 5 we have f£rjK6ev 6 o-Trdpuvj cp. Mt. xiii. 3 and parallels.
in the Apostolic Fathers 27
ii. Polycarfis Epistle to the Philippians. (a) Ch. ii.
p,VT)p,ovevovT(s fie $>v tiTTfv 6 Kvptos di8d(TK<av
P.T) Kpivcre, Iva p.^ KpidrjTf ................................................... (l)
a0i'ere, KCU afped^arfTat vfj.lv ................................................ (2)
e'Xearf, Iva €\€rjdrJTf ......................................................... (3)
<u p.frpa> yLtrrperre, dvTip,fTpr)Qr)(r€Tai vp.lv .............................. (4)
Km on,
p.(in(if)ioi ol Trreo^oi KCU ot fiia)Ko/iei>ot cveiccv diKaio&vvrjs, ort avra>v early 17 /3a(riXeia ro€ tfeoO ................................................ (5)
In general form the first part of this passage closely resembles that in Clem. xiii. 2, but three clauses are omitted — two of which happen to be those which have parallels in St Luke only — and the order is changed. Moreover Polycarp's first clause agrees exactly with Mt. vii. i ; his (4) also has the word ai/rt/zerpT^o-erai which seems to be the right reading in Lu. vi. 38 £. Further, he adds the first and eighth of the Beatitudes (Mt. v. 3 and 10), compressing them into one. Like St Luke, however, he omits TO) 7rv€vp.ari after TTTO^OI, and has /SatrtXe/a rov dcov for /Sao-tXeia r£>v ovpav&v. He also substitutes the present 8iooKo/i€i/oi for fi
(b) Ch. vii. 2.
8er)(T€(riv atrov/tei/oi TOV TravreTroTTTrjv 6fov /LU) elo-cveyKflv fjp.as fls irci- pao-p-ov, Kudus eiTrev 6 Kvpios' TO p.€V 7rv€vp.a Trpodvpov, r) fie crap| ao&Wff. Cp. Mt. vi. 13 (or Lu. xi. 4), and Mt. xxvi. 41 (or Mk xiv. 38).
(c) Parallelism without express citation.
In ch. v. 2 it is said that the Lord became 8taKovos travrtov. This exact phrase is found besides only at Mk ix. 35, though Mt. xx. 28 should also be compared.
iii. The Epistles of Ignatius.
The only express citation of a saying of Christ's in the Epistles of Ignatius appears to be taken from an apocryphal or oral source (see below). Nevertheless there are several parallelisms with the language of the Gospels, some more, some less striking.
(i) Ad Smyrn. i. i Christ is said to have been baptized by John Iva Tr\v)p<i)6fi Tracra 8tKato(TvvT). Cp. Mt. iii. 15*
The same chapter contains references to other points in the history of Christ which are in perfect agreement with the Gospels. It may be noted, for instance, that the Lord is said to have been crucified " under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch." Lightfoot remarks (in loc.} that "the part taken by Herod is mentioned by S. Luke alone in the Canonical writings, Lu. xxiii. 7 — 12, 15, Acts iv. 27." We must not, however, lay stress on this as proving Ignatius' acquaintance with this Gospel, for we
28 Parallelisms with the Gospels
shall notice several instances of a disposition to implicate the Jews — and Herod as King of the Jews — as fully as possible in the guilt of Christ's crucifixion (see pp. 51 n. i, 98 n. 3, etc.).
(2) Ad S my r n. vi. i o ^wpwi/ x<wperrci>. Cp. Mt. xix. 12.
(3) Ad Polyc. ii. 2 Ignatius in exhorting Polycarp to the earnest fulfilment of his ministry uses the language of Christ's Charge to His disciples as contained in Mt. x. 16, only changing the pi. to the sing.: — (ppovifios yivov us 6 o<f>is cv Tracriv KOL aKfpatos eitraei a)? 17 7r(pio~Tfpd.
(4) Ad Trail, xi. I OVTOI OVK flo-lv <pvreia narpos. See also same phrase Ad Philad. iii. i. Cp. Mt. xv. 13 spoken in regard to the Pharisees, Trdcra (pvrfia TJV OVK (<pvT€vo~cv 6 Trarrjp p,ov 6 ovpdvios eKptfadrjo-erai.
(5) Ad Ephes. xiv. 2 <pavepov TO 8ev8pov dirb rov napirov avrov- ovrvs ol €irayyf\\6p.(voi. Xptorot) fivm, 8C Siv Trpdo-o~ovo-tv 6<pdr)O-ovTai. Cp. Mt. vii. i6a (Lu. vi. 44 a\ also Mt. xii. 33 £.
(6) Ad Rom. vii. 2 6 €fj.bs cpu>s eorau/scoTat, »cat OVK. earn/ ev (p.ol irvp (pt\6v\ov, vd&p 8e £(0>v (cat \a\ovv ev «'/xot, eo~u>64v p.oi \eyov Aevpo Trpbr rov IT are pa. Cp. Jn iv, lof., xiv. 6 etc.
(7) Ad Philad. vii. I rb irvcvpa. ov n-Xavarai, dirb Qtov ov oldfv yap ep^erai Kal TTOV VTrdyet. Cp. Jn iii. 8.
The following saying, though it bears some resemblance to Lu. xxiv. 39, seems to differ from it too widely to be taken thence directly.
ore irpbs rovs TTfp\ tterpov rjXdfv, e(pr) avrols' Aa/3fre, ^r/Xa^^o-are /xf, KOI 18(T€ on OVK ft/it Saipoviov do-<i>fjiaTov. Ad Smyrn. iii. 2. Origen (De Princ. praef. ch. 8) refers to the latter part of this saying, " Non sumdaemonium incorporeum," as contained in "the little book called the Doctrine of Peter? Eusebius (H.E. ill. xxxvi. n) notes the citation in Ignatius, adding that he knows not whence it was taken. Jerome on the other hand says (De Vir. Illustr ch 16 on Ignatius) that it was taken from the Gospel which he himself had lately translated, i.e. (see ib. ch. 3) the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
CHAPTER II.
THE TRANSITION FROM THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE AGE OF THE APOLOGISTS AND OF THE CON- FLICT WITH GNOSTICISM.
THE works which have next to be examined — the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, the (so-called) Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd, by Hermas — may possibly, one or more of them, have been composed within the same limits of time as the Epistles of Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp ; no one of them probably is more than two or three decades later. But it can hardly be denied that, in character at all events, they differ markedly from those writings. They do not breathe so largely the spirit of the New Testament ; and the thoughts and needs and difficulties of a new age appear in them more clearly.
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.
In the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles — that one of the three writings just named, in assigning the age of which we are most dependent upon general considerations — we observe that the need has already made itself felt for rules to govern the life of the Church, and for their codification. A sharp distinction is also drawn between Christian and Jewish observances in regard to fasting1. On the other hand the simplicity of the various rules laid down points to a time when the work of systematisation and organisation had not proceeded far. In particular it should be noticed that the Eucharist has not yet been separated from the Agape, and that the New Testament phrase "bishops and deacons" is
1 ch. 8.
30 The date of the Didache
employed, that is to say no distinction is made between a chief pastor in each Christian community and the rest of its ministers. The bearing of the language in regard to prophets upon the question of date is more difficult to estimate. The position which they appear to occupy is more analogous to that implied in certain passages of the New Testament than to anything we read of elsewhere prior to the rise of Montanism ; but abuses in connexion with the exercise of the vocation of a prophet have already crept in, of which in the Apostolic Age there is no sign. Prophesying had clearly fallen into abeyance, though it may not have died out wholly, in the Church generally, when Montanus and his followers revived it. In the time when the Didache was composed it must have been still a more or less flourishing institution in some not inconsiderable district. On the whole it is very improbable that the condition of things to which the pro- visions and expressions of this Manual would have been applicable can have existed in any part of the Church later than about A.D. 130 ; and A.D. 1 10 — 130 may be suggested as limits of time between which it is likely to have been put together1.
1 For the indications of a very early date compare The Apostolic Fathers by Lightfoot and Harmer, pp. 215-6. These, it is there said, "point to the first or the beginning of the second century, as the date of the work in its present form."
Zahn, Kanon, \. p. 802, assigns circ. A.D. no as the time of composition, but the reasons which he gives are of very doubtful validity. They are "its literary relations on the one hand to the Shepherd of Hermas and on the other to the Ep. of Barnabas" To many minds these " literary relations " of posteriority to the one and priority to the other do not seem to be made out ; while there is also much diversity of opinion in regard to the dates of the two works with which he com- pares it. The Didache and the Ep. of Barnabas may more probably both be dependent upon a common source for the "Two Ways" and not either of them upon the other. The parallelisms in a passage of Hermas, also, with the " Two Ways" as given in the Didache (cp. Herm. M. ii. 4 — 6 with Did. i. 5), may be due to use of the same source written or oral. Cp. Harnack, Chron. I. 437-8. On the other hand the ground for Harnack's contention that the Didache is posterior to the Ep. of Barnabas does not seem to be more satisfactory. He holds that the setting of a phrase which occurs in both is plainly less original in the Didache than in Barnabas ; but this may well be questioned. Moreover the phrase is one which might have been common in Christian preaching.
Further, in fixing the posterior limit for the date of the composition of the Didache, Harnack suggests that in some rural district where the work may have been composed, the condition of things presupposed in it may have continued to circ. A.D. 1 60. (Ib. p. 431.) But a work emanating from a district, which was much behind the Church generally in the development of its ecclesiastical organi-
Date of the Epistle of Barnabas 31
In the use of the Gospels in this writing advance is observable. Not only is the Lord's Prayer given almost exactly as in St Matthew, and a saying of the Lord quoted, which is contained only in that Gospel, but in two passages, one of them on our Duty to God and our Neighbour, the other on the Last Things, passages evidently taken from St Luke are combined with others from St Matthew1. Language is also used such as would be natural only if the authority for what was taught was documentary2.
The Epistle of Barnabas.
The position adopted in the Epistle of Barnabas with regard to the Old Testament is unlike anything that we find either in the New Testament or in the Epistles of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp. To the writer, the character of many of its precepts caused difficulty, as they did to those who were led to adopt the Gnostic theories. But the difficulty is over- come in the work now before us, without calling in question the inspiration of the Scriptures, which were accepted by the Christian Church. According to it the Mosaic Law was divinely revealed, but only as a means of setting forth Divine mysteries under a symbolical form. It has true value only for those who apply to it the key of a right allegorical inter- pretation, and it never had any other. The notion that it was to be put in practice was an error of the Jews due to their carnal-mindedness3. Some little time must have elapsed since the Apostolic Age, when this artificial manner of treating the Old Testament could suggest itself. The age of Gnosticism could hardly have been far off; while, on the other hand, such a
sation, would not have been likely to exercise the influence which this work did, as is shewn by the fact that it became, apparently, the basis of other similar books of ordinances.
1 See Add. Note, p. 70.
2 ch. xv. 3, 4 bis " as ye have it in the Gospel." Cp. also ch. viii. 2.
3 See especially chh. 9, 10, 13, 14, 15. Expressions in these chapters, as well as the general tenor of the argument, seem to shew that the writer was a Gentile Christian. It may be reasonably conjectured that Alexandria was the place of composition ; cp. Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt I, II. pp. 504-5.
St Paul's argument i Cor. ix. ,9 "Is it for the oxen that God careth etc." bears a resemblance to, but falls very far short of, the contention in Barnabas. Even Origen afterwards did not advocate such an extreme view.
32 Date of the Epistle of Barnabas
view could not well have been put forward unaccompanied by any reference to the Gnostic teaching, after this had begun to be propagated. These considerations lead us to assign A.D. 120 — 130 as the approximate limits of time within which the work was composed.
Allusions in this work to facts of history have been thought to suit various dates from A.D. 70 to A.D. I321. In ch. iv. the writer warns his readers that the end is near, and implies that this is to be deduced from Daniel's vision of the beast in the midst of whose ten horns another little horn arose, before which three of the former were overthrown. He expressly refers to Daniel, and also quotes another prophetic utterance which is evidently based on this vision of Daniel. Three eminent critics in recent times, Weizsaecker2, Light- foot3 and Ramsay4, have explained the application of these quotations in the Ep. of Barnabas in partially different ways, and yet with the result that they all place the writing in the reign of Vespasian A.D. 70 — 79. But the theories of the two former clearly do violence either to the terms of the prophecy, or to history; while that of the third, though the least un- satisfactory, is itself not free from objection6. In addition to this, the date they arrive at is improbably early, in view of the character of the work, and the form of one of its Evangelical quotations to be presently noticed.
Interpretations of the Apocalyptic language which make it point to a later reign are, it is true, not more convincing6. On account of the uncertainty of its meaning, it seems wisest to lay little stress upon this passage in attempting to determine the date of the work. It may be that, as Harnack suggests7, the writer quoted the prophecy without having any precise, clearly worked-out application present to his thoughts; or again, that he, as his modern interpreters do, forced the
1 The allusions in question are contained in ch. iv. and ch. xvi. 3 — 8. The latter passage shews at least that it must fall between these dates.
2 Abhandlung zur Kritik des Barnabasbriefes aus dem Codex Sinaiticus (1863), p. 27 ff.
3 Ib. p. 505 ff.
4 Church tti Roman Empire, ch. xiii. 6, pp. 307-9 in first edition. I have unfortunately been unable to compare any later edition.
6 Cp. Harnack, Chron. I. pp. 418 — 22. 6 Harnack, ib. p. 423.
? Ib. p. 423.
The use in it of St Matthew 33
language which he quotes, but in some way of his own which, just because it was more or less arbitrary, we cannot certainly divine. The language of ch. 1 6 appears on the whole to suit the circumstances of A.D. I3O-I1. Taking into account the doctrinal tendency which we have noticed in the work, we may give circ. A.D. 130 as its probable date.
The point in regard to the Ep. of Barnabas, which is of interest in connexion with the history of the use of the Gospels, is that here we have our earliest instance of the citation of a saying of Christ as " scripture." This of itself would be somewhat strange, if this writing was produced, as some have supposed, some twenty years earlier than the earliest of the writings considered in the last chapter. The saying in question is contained in the Gospel accg to St Matthew and could not so far as we know have been derived from any other source2.
There are other signs that the writer was familiar with this Gospel3, but no distinct traces of the use of the other two Synoptics or of St John. He gives as a saying of the Lord the words " So I make the last things as the first things4." This bears a resemblance to a well-known saying in the three Synoptic Gospels ; but as it would have served the purpose of the writer's argument equally well, if not better, to have employed the masculine, it is on the whole most likely that he is quoting from an Apocryphal work, or from oral tradition.
1 Cp. Harnack, Chron. I. pp. 423-6.
2 Barn. iv. 14: "Let us give heed lest haply we be found, as it is written, ' many called, but few chosen.'" (npo<rtx<i}/j.ev /tt^Trore, u>s ytyparrTcu, TroXXoi K\t)Tol, 6\iyoL 5e e/cXe/croi evpe9ufj.ev, cp. Mt. xxii. 14.)
3 There are striking parallelisms in ch. 7 with the narrative of the Passion in St Matthew. Cp. Barn. vii. 3 and 5 with Mt. xxvii. 34, 48; and Barn. vii. 9 with Mt. xxvii. 30 and 54. Again in Barn. v. 9 there is an allusion to the saying of Christ at Mt. ix. 13 (also Mk ii. 17, Lu. v. 82); and at Barn. xii. n a parallelism with Mt. xxii. 45 (also Mk xii. 37, Lu. xx. 44).
4 Barn. vi. 13. \tyei 5t Ktipw 'I5oi> iroiu TO. foxara us rd. Trpura. Cp. Mt. xx. 1 6 etc.
S. G.
34 The date of the
The SJiepherd of Hennas.
In the ShepJierd by Hermas coming events of another kind may be seen to have cast their shadows before them. Questions begin to emerge which greatly occupied the minds of men in the days of the Montanist, Novatianist and Donatist schisms. A sublime and comprehensive conception of the Church is present to the writer's mind ; he has a deep sense of her essential holiness, while he is painfully aware of the contrast between this ideal and the moral and spiritual state of far too many of her members. The need for wide-spread repentance is the great theme of the book. In connexion with this the possibility of forgiveness for post-baptismal sin is considered. Already there were some teachers who denied it, and in the Shepherd itself their view is admitted to be true for the time to come. But it is maintained that for those who before that time had sinned God has mercifully left open the path of restoration1. The writer must have been conscious of the novelty of the doctrine that there could be no renewal for those who fell after baptism ; he felt, therefore, it would seem, that as Christians hitherto had not been sufficiently warned of this, allowance must be made as to the past ; but henceforth there would be no excuse. In the immediate sequel to the passage to which we have been here mainly referring, he deals with another point still more leniently than the rigorists of a later time did, and the very fact that the two questions are associated in Hermas is not without interest and importance. Hermas asks his heavenly instructor about the lawfulness of second marriages after the death of one consort, and the answer is that they are not sinful, though at the same time to refrain from re-marriage is the higher course2. On the other hand the duty of a husband to remain unmarried if his wife has proved unfaithful is firmly laid down ; if he marries again he commits adultery ; moreover he ought to keep himself free to receive his wife back again if she repents3. Distinctions are also made between different
1 M. 4, iii. (cp. V. 2, ii. 8); S. 9, xxvi. 6, and M. 4, iv. 3, 4.
2 M. 4, iv. i, 2. 8 M. 4, i. 4—8.
Shepherd of Hermas 35
degrees of guilt among those who have denied the faith1. In the treatment of these cases of conscience and questions as to the position of various classes of offenders in this little work we see in truth the beginnings of the development of the Church's system of discipline and of Moral Theology.
Further, in the Church as the author of the Shepherd knows it, especially no doubt the Church in the city of Rome to which he belonged, various social grades were represented. He dwells much on the duties and temptations of the rich. We may note in particular that some of them shewed an inclination to keep aloof from the company of their Christian brethren2. Other Christians had sinned through coveting places of preeminence in the Church3.
The state of feeling and the condition of the Church implied are very different from those that we trace in the Epistle written by Clement, the chief personage in the same Church, near the end of the first century. It is, indeed, on all grounds difficult to suppose that they could have arisen, or that the questions to which reference has been made could have been put and answered in the definite manner that they are here, before the second generation after the deaths of SS. Peter and Paul at earliest.
But we must proceed to discuss some more exact indica- tions of date, or what seem to be such. If the statement of the writer near the beginning, that he was charged to deliver one copy of his work to Clement, in order that he might send it to foreign cities4, is to be taken as sufficient evidence that Clement was alive when it was written, we cannot place its composition later than about A.D. ioo5. On the other hand, according to the well-known words of the Muratorian fragment, it was written by the brother of Pius, during the episcopate of the latter, for which the years A.D. 140 — 155 may be assigned6. We shall presently consider what amount of weight is to be allowed to the latter statement. At this
1 S. 9, xix. and xxi. 3, xxvi. 3, 4; xxviii. 4. See further below, p. 38 f., on these different classes of apostates.
2 S. 8, viii. i.
3 S. 8, vii. 4—6. 4 V. 2, iv. 3.
5 As to this date for Clement's death cp. Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt i, I. p. 343.
6 Ib. p. 325 f.
3—2
36 The date of the
point we would observe only that we need not feel ourselves strictly bound by the former reference. The role assigned here to Clement may well be regarded as part of the imaginary mise en scene. That this use should be made of an eminent character from among the departed will not seem strange to anyone at all familiar with Apocalyptic literature, of the characteristics of which this work partakes. It is true that the writer, who does not seem to be concealing his own personality, associates himself with Clement in the task of making known the revelations which he had received, reserving to himself the duty of reading them to " this city (Rome) and to the presbyters." But there would be nothing incongruous in the author's thus joining himself with Clement, even when writing after his death, if by the time when it took place he was already an adult Christian1. All that we should then need to assume would be that, as part of the fiction, he has placed the time of his receiving the visions and the other instruction of his heavenly teacher, and of his writing all this down, earlier by some years (more or fewer) than he actually composed the work. Its date would not in this way be removed very greatly from the time of Clement, but this may be sufficient to account for its peculiarities. The age was in all probability one when change was rapid in the Christian Church.
The express allusions to persecutions and their effects must be examined with special care. Hermas learns that those who have "suffered for the Name" have seats reserved for them on the right side of the sanctuary in the heavenly temple. " What," he asks, " have they endured ? " " Stripes, imprisonments, great afflictions, crosses, wild beasts," is the reply. Therefore they " have a certain glory " as everyone will " who suffers for the Name." But Hermas himself, and others who have not been called to confessorship, are to be placed on the left side of the sanctuary, though all enjoy "the same gifts and the same promises2." Mention is also made repeatedly, and with greater distinctness than in any
1 This would of course be perfectly consistent with his being a brother of Pius, if he was an older brother.
2 V. 3, i. 9 — ii. i. See also S. 9, xxviii. 3.
Shepherd of Hennas 37
other Christian writing which can be thought to be either earlier or contemporary, of those who have abjured the faith under the stress of persecution1. Some of these " apostates8" had even blasphemed against the Lord and betrayed their brethren and the Church3. Another type of character is referred to: — "double-minded men" who "as soon as they hear of affliction, owing to their cowardice, commit acts of idolatry, and are ashamed of the Name of their Lord4." It is a sad but interesting trait. These faint-hearted Christians, when trouble threatened, did not even wait to be brought up before a magistrate and required by him to offer sacrifice. They hastened to conform in some way openly to heathen customs in order that they might not be objects of suspicion to their neighbours and the authorities.
In one place he speaks of " those who formerly denied," in another of "those who long ago denied," and in both he distinguishes those whom he thus describes from such as should deny the faith in the trial which, he is convinced, is at hand5. He knows, it would seem, of no acts of apostasy which are very recent; it does not at least occur to him to deal with them. He treats only of two cases ; (a) apostates of old standing, (b) apostates in the future. This fact should be carefully noted ; it appears to be a crucial one. There does not seem to be anything in other parts of the Shepherd which is seriously inconsistent with the language of these passages6. Now in the third and beginning of the fourth century, when we have much fuller knowledge of the Church's history, she had times of comparative quiet, during which she grew
1 Probable, or possible, allusions in the New Testament, etc. are the SeiXof in Apoc. xxi. 8, and indirectly Apoc. ii. 13, iii. 8; the "antichrists who went out from us," i Jn ii. 18, 19 ; the words of Polycarp ad Phil. vii. i 5s 8u> /AT? b^6\oyg TO /AapTvpLov TOV ffTavpov ^K TOV 5ta/36\oi> tffrlv, and of Ignatius ad Pol. vi. 6 pr/ris
2 The word dTrtxrrdTTjs is used V. 1, iv. 2, S. 8, vi. 4. These are, I believe, much the earliest instances in extant Christian literature of the use of the word in the specific meaning of one who has abjured the Christian faith.
3 S. 8, vi. 4.
4 S. 9, xxi. 3. On those who hesitate whether they shall confess or deny, see ib. xxviii. 4 — 7.
5 ot irporepoi' dpuriffafj-fvot, V. 2, ii. 8 ; o! TrdXcu -f)pvr}fj^voi, S. 9, xxvi. 6.
6 With what I have urged on this point cp. Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt 2, I. p. 508. The only passage which may seem at first difficult to reconcile with it is S. 9, xxi. 3,
38 The date of the
rapidly, alternating with periods, generally much shorter ones, of acute trial, each of which produced noble confessors, but also, alas ! its crop of apostates. When at an earlier time the conditions were similar, we cannot doubt that they had like effects; and indeed the language of Hermas to which we have been adverting goes far to prove it.
But we desire to ascertain as nearly as we can the time at which it would have been natural for him to write as he did. He is looking back to some time of persecution in the past. He speaks of the denials of Christ which have taken place as having happened "long ago." We ought not to press too hardly his silence as to more recent falls. The position of Christians from the latter part of the first century to the end of the Diocletian persecution was always more or less in- secure, and now and again, even in the times which were relatively speaking peaceful for them, alarms occurred or acts of oppression1 under which some stood firm and others quailed. But the great majority of those who, at the time when Hermas wrote, needed to repent of having denied their Lord, had fallen, as we must conclude from the expres- sions used, not less than ten to fifteen years before2. On the other hand, after thirty to thirty-five years had elapsed since the last severe persecution there would be very few (if any) such still living and known in the place where they had thus sinned. Will these considerations enable us to fix dates between which Hermas's book must have been composed ?
After Nero's savage onslaught Christians do not seem to have been seriously persecuted till near the close of Domitian's reign3, but at that time the Church, as the Ep. of Clement,
quoted above. But the present seems to be used here because a certain type of character is in question.
1 This is well illustrated in Justin's Second Apology c. I ff. Crescens' attack upon Justin himself may also fall in the same reign.
2 With Hermas' expression oi TraXctt ripvri^voi it is interesting to compare what Pliny writes to Trajan (Ep. 96): "Alii ab indice nominati esse se Chris- tianos dixerunt et mox negaverunt ; fuisse quidem sed desisse, quidam ante plures annos, non nemo etiam ante viginti quoque."
3 It is unnecessary for me to go into the question, which has been much discussed, as to the precise position of Christians before the law under successive emperors from Nero to Trajan, or the motives from which they were attacked.
Shepherd of Hermas 39
confirmed by not a little other evidence, shews, was greatly harassed, especially in the imperial city.
The two years of Nerva's reign have always been held to have been a time of general peace for the Church. But there are also no well-authenticated instances of Roman martyrs under Trajan1 and Hadrian. And even if it is allowed that the very untrustworthy Acts of Martyrdoms said to have taken place in Rome and its neighbourhood during these reigns may contain an element of truth, the result is not to give us any large total amount of persecution. In the provinces there was more persecution, at least in one part of Trajan's reign. Pliny's letter to that emperor (autumn or winter of A.D. 1 12)2 proves this as regards Bithynia. But it is probable that from that time forward through Trajan's policy, set forth in his rescript to Pliny on that occasion (Pliny, Ep. 97) which was followed also, and carried further, by Hadrian, persecution was to a considerable extent restrained through- out the empire3. If Hennas was thinking of apostates else- where than in Rome they might be such as were made by the
It can hardly be doubted that they did, in point of fact, suffer severely under both Nero and Domitian, and this is sufficient for my present purpose.
1 Ignatius was martyred in Rome in this emperor's reign. But he had been seized as a Christian in far-off Antioch and sent to the capital like an ordinary criminal, when victims were needed for the Roman amphitheatre. The seizure of a Roman citizen, and even of a dweller in Rome, would have seemed to most Romans (we may believe) quite a different matter. Ignatius' letter to the Christians in Rome even assumes that they might have influence to get him off; he is afraid of their using it (c. iv.).
Telesphorus, the seventh bishop of Rome, is stated by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. iii. 3) to have been martyred, but we do not know for what reason he was so. According to Eusebius (H. E. IV. x.) it happened in the first year of Antoninus Pius.
The populace in Rome does not seem to have been so prone, as that of many provincial cities was, to make onslaughts upon the Christians. Possibly it was kept under better control ; or it had come to be more tolerant of strange creeds, owing to the motley collection of nationalities and religions with which it had become familiar; or the Christian body was lost to view in the vast city. It will be remembered that the attacks from which Christians suffered in Rome in the first century, whether on the ground that they were Christians or as Jews, proceeded from emperors. Later, however, after the Conversion of the Empire, attachment to paganism and hostility to the new religion were manifested in Rome more strongly than almost anywhere else.
2 See Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt 2, I. p. 56, and II. p. 536 n. and his reference to Mommsen.
3 For the view of the early history of the persecution of the Christian Church
40 The date of the
persecution in the days of Pliny's proconsulship or even later. But it is evident that in his book the circumstances of the Church in Rome are before his mind ; his message is primarily to it. He may not have been altogether unconscious of what had happened and was happening in the Church at large. But he would not write as he does of these apostates of former days unless there were such in that city. We must then allow an interval, as we have seen, of some ten to fifteen years from the last year of Domitian's reign, in choosing our earliest limit for the time of the composition of the Shepherd. On the other hand we ought not to place it more than thirty to thirty-five years later than that epoch.
Even the latest year however, here allowed for, falls short considerably of the earliest date that would agree with the statement in the Muratorian fragment on the Canon. This document cannot be hastily set aside. For it must have been written at Rome itself, or in its immediate neighbourhood, near the close of the second or early in the third century1. It should, however, be observed, that the author of this fragment had an object in separating Hermas' ShepJierd as much as possible from the Apostolic Age and bringing it into connexion with the age of men still living ; he may therefore have exaggerated to a certain extent the lateness of its origin. It may have been perfectly true that the author was the brother of bishop Pius; from this it would be a short step to conclude that the work was written actually while Pius was bishop, for which there may not have been sufficient justification. Moreover, as Lightfoot has remarked (Ap. Frs, Pt I, I. p. 360), "considering that we possess this testimony" (viz. that Hermas wrote during the episcopate of Pius) "in a very blundering Latin translation, it may reasonably be questioned whether the Greek original stated as much definitely."
It is to be added that the character of the references to the Christian Ministry in the Shepherd can hardly be recon-
here taken, and the evidence for it, see esp. Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt 2, I. i — 22, p. 502 ff., ib. Pt i, I. 81, 350 — 352; also, as to many points, Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, cc. x., xii., xiv., esp. pp. 259 f. and 325-9. (ist ed.)
1 See below, p. 247 n. i.
Shepherd of Hennas 41
ciled with so late a date as A.D. 140. Three orders are, to say the least, not distinctly recognised, and the duty of the higher order appears to consist chiefly in the care of the needy and desolate and hospitality to strangers1. Now there can be no doubt that the monarchical episcopate was fully exemplified in the person of Anicetus, who became bishop of Rome circ. A.D. 155. And a tradition which was firmly held well before the end of the second century supplied a regular list of bishops filling up all the interval from the time of the Apostles2. According to this list Pius was the immediate predecessor of Anicetus. There is no trace of there having been at any time any violent or decided change by which one form of Church government was substituted for another. There was change no doubt; but it must have taken place by way of peaceful and probably at the time unnoticed develop- ment. A decade before the middle of the second century, and longer than that, the position of the chief presbyter must have been clearly marked, and we should expect that any writer treating of the themes that Hermas does would shew consciousness of this.
On the whole, if we take the narrower limits suggested above for the composition of the Shepherd, thus placing it between A.D. no and 125, the different indications in regard to it will, perhaps, be reconciled as well as they can be3.
1 A comparison of V. 2, ii. 6 with ib. iv. 2, 3 suggests that ol irporiyo'ufj.evoi r^s eKK\ri<rLas of the former passage are the same as oi Trpeafitirfpoi ol Trpoi'crrdftei'ot TTJJ eKKXyvlas of the latter. Also, if Clement's position had been in the writer's view approximately what that of bishops of the latter part of the century was, or what that of bishops in the Churches of Asia already was when Ignatius wrote, it would have been natural that it should have been committed to him to address the body of presbyters. Again in S. 9, xxvi. there is a reference to 'deacons' and in xxvii. to ' bishops,' with which collocation it is impossible not to compare Phil. i. I and Clem, ad Cor. 42. Again the stress laid on the exercise of charity in the case of the bishops, and silence about teaching, are noticeable (S. 9, xxvii. 2). The only "teachers" mentioned are the original preachers of the Gospel, ib. xxv. Cp. the enumeration at V. 3, v. i — "apostles, bishops, and teachers and deacons." The language regarding true and false prophets (M; 11) reminds us somewhat of the Didache.
2 See Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt i, I. p. 340, comparing Harnack's criticisms, Chron. I. p. 172 f.
3 I will briefly state the views of a few well-known writers as to the date of the Shepherd. A. Hilgenfeld, Apost. Vdter (1853) arrived at much the same con-
42 Parallelisms with the Gospels
In a book professing to consist of a series of communi- cations made by a heavenly teacher, express quotations would have been out of place, and there are none in the Shepherd either from the Old Testament or the New. Never- theless, what seem clearly to be reminiscences of all the four Gospels occur in it, as well as of several New Testament Epistles and of the Ancient Scriptures. The author freely adapts the ideas and language of these writings to his own purposes. His fifth parable, which is remarkable on account of its Christological doctrine, also illustrates well his use of the Gospels1. The parable of the Vineyard is specially in his thoughts, but he combines therewith traits from several other parables. A certain man planted a vineyard (Mt. xxi. 33, Mk xii. i, Lu. xx. 9) in a portion of his field (Mt. xiii. 24). He gave it in charge to a certain servant who was faithful and well-pleasing and precious to him. [The " servant " is the human nature of Christ, see Hermas' own interpretation in the sequel, § vi. Christ appears to compare Himself to a " servant " in the parable of the Great Supper, Lu. xiv. 16 f., to which Hermas alludes further on. With the servant's being "well-pleasing," evdpearos, cp. eV a> evSo/crja-a Mt. iii. 17 etc.]
elusion as that reached above. It "was not in any case written before the last times of Trajan, and probably not till the reign of Hadrian (117 — 138). Later than this we ought not to go..." See p. i^gf. Lipsius, who discussed the rela- tions of the Shepherd to Montanism with great fulness in a series of Articles under the title Der Hirte des Hermas und der Montanismus in Rom, in the Zeitschr, f. Wiss. Theol. for 1865-6, says it can hardly be earlier, and certainly not much later, than the middle of the second century, fb. 1865, p. 283. Zahn on the other hand places it A.D. 100, primarily on the ground of the reference to Clement. In his Hirt des Hermas (1868) he contends that the characteristics of the work either suit, or are not inconsistent with, this time. He adheres to this position in Kanon, p. 799 (1888). Salmon prefers a date "a few years later than Zahn." Diet, of Chr. Bio. II. p. 917 f. Westcott, Canon, p. 201, makes it contemporary with Montanism. Lightfoot, Ep. to Phil, note at end of chap, iv., and Ap. Frs, Pt i, I. p. 359 f., briefly discusses the question of the date of the Shepherd ; he comes to no conclusion, but he declines to accept the evidence of the Muratorian fragment as final. On the ground, however, of this evidence he gave A.D. 145 as the date in his Ep. to Gal., and allowed it to stand there to the end. It appears in the loth ed. published shortly after his death (pp. 99, 339). Harnack, Chron. I. p. 263 f., has a theory that the work was written at different times, the earliest little book, which contains the allusion to Clement, being of not later date than A.D. i to, while the whole was brought to its present form A.D. 140. 1 S. 5. ii. See pp. 72 — 75.
in the Shepherd of Hennas 43
The Master bade the servant enclose the vineyard with stakes (Mt. and Mk ib.) and went abroad (egfjXOev et? rrjv aTroSr)- fjiiav] Mt. Mk and Lu. ib. aTreB^/jirja-ev). The servant did as he was commanded, and more than this; he said to himself, " I will dig the vineyard, and it will give more fruit" (Lu. xiii. 8, 9). When the Master saw all this he called his beloved Son (Mk xii. 6, Lu. xx. 13) whom he had as his heir (Mt. xxi. 38, Mk xii. 7, Lu. xx. 14), and his friends, whom he had as his councillors, and they rejoiced with the servant (Lu. xv. 6) at the witness which the Master -witnessed to him (a characteristic Johannine thought and expression, see esp. Jn v. 32). The Master announced to them that it was his purpose to make the servant, on account of the work which he had wrought, joint-heir with his son, and to this the son consented. So after a few days the householder (Mt. xx. I) made a supper (Lu. xiv. 16) to celebrate this determination and to carry it out.
So the parable ends; then, just as at the conclusions of parables in the Gospels the disciples ask Jesus for explana- tions, so Hermas here asks his heavenly instructor to expound the parables to him, and he receives the answer " I will ex- pound all things to thee" [iravra aoi, eVtXvcrft) ; § iii. I. See also ib. § v. I and cp. Mk iv. 34 e-rreXvev iravra] zirikveiv is not used in any other passage of the Gospels.] In the explanation (§§ v., vi.) there are two striking parallels with the Gospel accg to St Matthew. We are told that the field is this world (Mt. xiii. 37), and of him who in the parable appears as a servant it is said that " he received all authority from his Father" (Mt. xxviii. 18; cp. also Jn v. 27 and xvii. 2).
In other passages the parable of the Sower and its explanation, as given either in Matthew or Mark, are plainly in mind. Of certain Christians it is said : — " these are they who have faith, but have also wealth of this world : whenever tribulation ariseth, because of their wealth and their affairs (Trpay/uLareiai,, cp. (jLepL^vai) they deny their Lord " (V. 3, vi. 5). Again, "the thistles are the rich, and the thorns are those who are mixed up in divers affairs... they err being choked 'by their doings" (S. 9, xx. i, 2). A little further on in the same Similitude he speaks of plants which are green at the top,
44 Parallelisms with the Gospels
but withered at t/ie root, and some plants which are altogether wittered by the sun (ib. xxi. i). (With the preceding passages cp. Mt. xiii. 6, 7, 21, 22; Mk iv. 6, 7, 17, 18, 19*.)
In the same context Christ's saying concerning the hindrance of riches (Mk x. 23, 24, Mt. xix. 23, Lu. xviii. 24) is introduced, and here Hermas seems to have St Mark in view. For he not only says that such (the rich) shall hardly (Sucr/coXey?) enter the kingdom of God\ but just afterwards he repeats, as Christ does according to St Mark, " for such it is hard."
The following parallelisms with expressions or ideas occurring in St Matthew alone may be added to those which have already been noted, (a) The question is asked what a husband is to do if he discovers that his wife, a Christian by profession, is living in adultery and she does not repent, but adheres to her fornication (eVt/xei/^ rfj iropvela avrrjs). The answer is " Let him put her away, and let the husband abide alone ; but if he when /te has put away his wife shall marry another •, he too committeth adultery'' In this passage the writer plainly has Mt. xix. 9 in view, and not Mk x. 1 1, or Lu. xvi. 18. The excepted case, in which "putting away" is not pro- nounced unlawful according to the form of the saying in Matthew, is the one that is specially treated in the Shepherd-, this is evident from the context. But words in regard to the husband are added, in order to guard against a possible perversion of Christ's saying2, (b) Hermas is shewn a tree, of which it is said " this great tree that shadeth plains and mountains and all the earth is the law of God which is given to the whole world ; and this law is the Son of God preached unto the ends of the earth " (S. 8, iii. 2). The word tree occurs in the parable of the mustard-plant as given in St Matthew and St Luke, but not in St Mark. As there are more signs in Hermas of the use of St Matthew than of St Luke, it is most natural to see an allusion to, or reminiscence of, the former here also, (c) Hermas is bidden
1 Hermas also in § xxix. i — 3 of this Similitude speaks of certain choice souls who are as babes, so guileless have they ever continued to be. This comparison might have been suggested either by Mt. xviii. i — 4, 10 and xix. 13 — 15 ; or by Mk ix. 35—37 and x. 13—16. 2 M. 4. i. 4—8.
in the Shepherd of Hennas 45
to distinguish between false prophets and true by their life and their works (M. 11, 16 and context, cp. Mt. vii. 15, 16). {d} Certain virgins who are holy spirits must clothe a man with their garment (evSvcrdxri TO evSvfjia avrwv ; cp. ez/$e- ^vfievov evSvfjia yd/jLov, Mt. xxii. 1 1) in order that he may be found in the kingdom of God1.
Since we have met with hardly any indications of the use of St Mark in the writings which we have examined before the Shepherd, it is specially interesting to observe those which occur here2. We have noticed some already ; we may mention besides (a) that Hermas says that " he cannot understand and that his heart is hardened" (ov avvlw ovBev, real rj /cap&ia /JLOV 7T€7ra)p(DTai,, M. 4, ii. i). He also (M. 12, iv. 4) speaks of some " who have the Lord upon their lips, but their heart hardened" (rrjv Be rcapSiav avrwv TreTrwpwfjievrjv). The fault to which Jesus traces the dulness of His disciples in Mk vi. 52 and viii. 17 f. is exactly that which Hermas acknowledges in his own case and the same word is used (cp. also Mk iii. 5). (b) Again the precept preserved in St Mark, " Be at peace among yourselves" occurs twice in the Shepherd (cp. V. 3, ix. 2 and xii. 3 with Mk ix. 50). The only difference is that Mark has eV aXXr^Xot?, Hermas eV eaimn?. Hermas may, however, have taken it from I Thess. v. 13, his agreement with which is exact, (c] Further, in a passage in which Hermas describes the work of the Apostles there are striking resemblances to the commission given to them at the con- clusion of St Mark. One of the mountains which Hermas
1 S. 9, xiii. 2. In addition to the above parallelisms we may notice also V. 4, ii. 6 : ova! rols a.Ko6<Ta<Tit> TO. prjfj.ara raCra /cat irapa.Kov<Ta<riv aiperurepov TJV avrols rb pi] yewr)6T)i'ai. The latter half of this sentence might have been taken either from Mt. xxvi. 24 or Mk xiv. 21 ; but the thought of the former half corresponds with Mt. vii. 26.
2 Zahn in Hirt d. Hermas, pp. 456-64, maintained that a predominant use of the Gospel accg to St Mark is observable in the Shepherd, and even questioned there being any traces of acquaintance with St Matthew, and proceeded to argue that the use of St Mark having been well established in the Roman Church and other Greek-speaking Churches before St Matthew existed in Greek, it held its own as the favourite Gospel for some time, even for as much as a generation after the Greek St Matthew had appeared. I gather from his Kanon, p. 919 f., that he has somewhat modified his opinion as to this ; the evidence as a whole is unfavourable to it.
46 Parallelisms with the Gospels
saw had many fountains, from which the whole creation (iraa-a r) Krio-is) drank. The believers, it is said, from this mountain are " apostles and teachers who preached unto the whole world and taught the word of the Lord in soberness and purity" (S. 9, xxv. i, 2 ; cp. Mk xvi. is)1.
For a reason already given2 it seems likely that the present ending of St Mark, consisting of the last twelve verses, was supplied very early in the dissemination of the work. The fact, to which I have just drawn attention, that there is a parallelism with it in the Shepherd, agrees with this. It seems also to follow that the copy with this ending, from which all existing copies have been ultimately derived, belonged, not to Alexandria, as Mr Burkitt conjectures, but to Rome, and that thence the circulation proceeded. And this harmonises well with early tradition in respect to the composition of this Gospel.
The signs of acquaintance with the Gospel accg to St Luke are the least clear. The parallelisms, however, to which I have drawn attention, though slight in themselves, seem to me to be worthy of attention when their setting and Hernias' manner of writing are taken into account. I know of no other to be mentioned, saving the use of Itc/jLaSa by Hermas (S. 8, ii. 9, cp. Lu. viii. 6)3.
One instance of Johannine thought and language has already come before us; there are others, (a) In M. 3, I we read, " Love truth and let nothing but truth proceed out of thy mouth, that the Spirit, which God made to dwell in this flesh, may be found true in the sight of all men, and thus shall the Lord who dwelleth in thee be glorified (SogaaOrf- crerat), for the Lord is true (aKyOwos) in every word, and with him there is no falsehood" (cp. Jn xvii. 10, vii. 28, I Jn v. 20,
1 The words Tratra i] Kriffis might also have been taken from Col. i. 23, with which Epistle there is a parallel, S. 9, xii. 2. But the thought of the Apostles going forth to preach is implied more clearly in Mk xvi. 15. The teaching may have been taken from Mt. xxviii. 19, which passage (as we have seen) Hermas has in mind at S. 5, vi. 4.
2 See above, p. 18, n. i.
3 Zahn, Hirt d. Hermas, p. 463. Zahn also notes possible reminiscences of Acts, i. 24, xv. 8 in the use of KapStoyvuffTij^ at M. 4, iii. 4, and of Acts iv. 12 and ii. 1 1 at V. 4, ii. 4, 5.
in the Shepherd of Hennas 47
ii. 2/)1. (b} In the Fifth Similitude, in which we have the words, " the witness which he witnessed," we have also the expression, "the law which he received from his Father." (S. 5, vi. 3, cp. Jn xii. 49.) (c) From the Ninth Similitude there are several passages to be quoted. " The gate is the Son of God : this is the one entrance to the Lord ; none therefore shall enter to him otherwise than through his Son." (S. 9, xii. 6; see also context, and cp. Jn xiv. 6.) "The seal is the water.... To them, therefore, was this seal preached, and they used it, in order that they might enter into the kingdom of God'.' (Ib. xvi. 4, see also xii. 8 ; cp. Jn iii. 5.) " Your whole seed shall dwell with the Son of God ; for of his Spirit did ye receive." (Ib. xxtv., cp. Jn i. 16, I Jn iv. 13.)
The impression, that Hermas derived the phrases and ideas which we have noted from the Gospels that we know, is strengthened when we observe that there are also traces of his having used other New Testament writings, in par- ticular the Epistle of St James and the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as several epistles of St Paul. It is interesting to notice the signs of knowledge of the Epistle to the Hebrews, because the evidence of Hermas, taken with that of Clement of Rome, shews that it must have been early held in high esteem in the Church of Rome.
It is to be added that the Shepherd does not appear to contain any quotation from an Apocryphal Gospel2. We should not, however, be justified in concluding from the facts which we have observed, in the absence of all confirmatory evidence in the first half of the second century to this effect, that at this time the four Gospels were consciously separated off from all other works of the same kind and classed together as of coordinate and unique authority, in other words that the conception of the " fourfold Gospel " already existed3.
1 The words the Spirit which God made to dwell (8 KaruKiffev) are from Jas. iv. 5, but in their purport they, too, resemble the teaching of the Fourth Gospel.
2 Hilgenfeld (Apost. Vater, p. 184 (15)) suggests that S. 9, xvi. 4, T] <r<j>payis oZv TO v8(>}p tffrlv els rb tiSwp ofiv KaTajSaivovffi veKpol, Kal dvaflatvovo'i fuWes is from an Apocryphal source. I can see no reason for supposing this.
3 I agree with Dr C. Taylor, The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels, 1892, as to the evidence of Hermas being of greater value in connexion with the history of the Canon than has often been supposed. I thought it best to investi- gate the subject independently ; and I refrained from refreshing my recollection of
48 The Apology of Aristides
The Apology of A ris tides.
In discussing the date of the Shepherd the subject of the early persecutions of Christians has come befqre us. We pass now to one of the earliest protests against the attitude of hostility to Christianity adopted by the State, which has been so happily recovered in recent years, the Apology of Aristides1. Eusebius in his history (iv. 3) refers to this work as composed at about the same time as the Apology of Quadratus and as presented, like it, to the emperor Hadrian. In his Chronica, too, he mentions the two together, placing his notice of them under the year A.D. 125 or 126, in connexion with Hadrian's initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries at Athens. Jerome also, though he may of course simply be following Eusebius,
his book, which I read when it appeared, till my task was virtually completed. It is the more satisfactory that I have arrived at the same general conclusion. It has been my aim to give only the parallelisms which seem to me to be clearest. Others of varying degrees of force may be seen in Dr Taylor's work. I must however confess that many of the parallelisms with the Gospels which he discovers seem to me to be overstrained. Further, I find it impossible to adopt his view that the four-legged bench on which the lady at her third appearance takes her seat signifies that the Church is founded upon the Four Gospels (Taylor, p. 5 ff.). This does not seem to me to agree with the general drift of the interpretation given by Hermas of the three appearances of the Lady (V. 3, x. — xiii.). And if this meaning was intended, we should at least expect to find in this place and in other parts of the work some clearer indication of it. It is interesting, indeed, to compare Hermas' reference (ib. xiii. 3) to the fact that "the world is upheld by four elements " with Irenaeus' language about the Fourfold Gospel {Adv. Haer. ill. xi. 8); but it is no unfamiliar thing that the same figure should be used in different ways. If in Hermas it has a precise meaning, it is probably designed to convey the idea of the Church's universality. It should also be observed that Irenaeus himself does not say that the Church was founded on the Gospels, and probably such a notion was as foreign to the thought of the second century as it is to historical fact.
1 A considerable fragment of the earlier part from an Armenian Version was published by the Mechitarist Fathers in 1878. A. Syriac Version, complete or nearly so, was found by Mr J. R. Harris in the spring of 1889 in the Convent of St Catharine on Mount Sinai, and shortly afterwards a great part of the original Greek was shrewdly discovered by Dr J. A. Robinson, embedded in the story of Barlaam and Josaphat. See Texts and Studies I. i by J. R. Harris and J. A. Robinson, where the fragment of the Armenian as translated in the Mechitarist edition into Latin, and a translation from another MS. of it into English by Mr Conybeare, may also be read. In references to this Apology I have used Mr Harris' divisions.
.
The date of the Apology of Aristides 49
twice states that Aristides addressed an Apology to Hadrian1. Moreover, the sole title in the fragment of the Armenian Version and the first title in the Syriac Version are to the same effect. In the latter Version, however, there follows a title or dedication — owing to the corrupt state of the text it is uncertain how it should be described — according to which the Apology was addressed to "the Imperial Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus, Worshipful and Clement" (the two last epithets are in the plural). Since the discovery of this document it has been held by many that the composition really belongs to the reign of Antoninus Pius, and that Eusebius was mistaken in referring it to that of Hadrian2. It is thought that he had not seen the work, or that he had been misled by some copy in which an erroneous address was prefixed. It needs further to be assumed, as I will first remark, that this error was widely spread through the influence of Eusebius or otherwise ; so much so that all traces of the truth have disappeared except in the title of the Syriac Version. But clearly we ought not to have recourse unnecessarily to such an hypothesis as this. And it is the more difficult to accept, because even in the time of Eusebius many copies of the work existed3, while the Armenian and Syriac Versions which were made of it and its embodiment in the story of Barlaam and Josaphat all help to shew how widely it must have been disseminated. Another and very simple explanation of the title in the Syriac Version may be given, which does not make its evidence conflict with that of other witnesses. It would be the most natural thing in the world that in some copy made after the commencement of the reign
1 De Vir. ill. 20, and Ep. 70, 4.
2 Harris, Texts and Studies, I. i, p. 6ff.; Raabe, Texte u. Untersuch. IX. pp. 25-6 ; Seeberg in Zahn's Forsch. zttr Geschichte d. N. T. Kanons, v. p. 248 ff. ; Harnack, Chron. I. p. 272; and others. On the other hand A. Hilgenfeld main- tains the originality of the address to Hadrian (Zeitschr, f. Wiss. Theol. vol. xxxv. p. 245, and vol. xxxvi. i, pp. 104-5). J. A. Robinson also declines to accept the testimony of the Syriac translator against that of the Armenian Version and of Eusebius. Texts and Studies, I. i, p. 75, n. 2.
a 0-wfercu d£ ye ei's devpo irapa TrXe/crrots ical y TOIJTOV ypa<J)ri (ff. E. IV. iii. 3). As to the question of traces probable or possible of acquaintance with our Apology in early Christian literature, and of its own dependence upon other works, see Robinson, ib. pp. 84 — 99; Seeberg, ib. pp. 211 — 247.
S. G. 4
50 Date of the Apology of Aristides
of Antoninus, his name should have been added to, or substi- tuted for, that of his predecessor in the address. From such a copy, we may well believe, the second title in the Syriac Version was derived1. The character of the work is also in favour of an early date. Some, indeed, of the lines of thought pursued are the same as those which are to be found in Apologies which unquestionably belong to the middle and second half of the century, but they are less fully developed ; others met with in these are wanting altogether. In order to appreciate fully the force of this consideration, it should be remembered that the arguments employed, for example, by Justin in the works which have come down to us, had doubt- less, according to all the habits of the age and circumstances of his own vocation, been frequently urged in his discourses, and had probably been used also to some extent by other Christian teachers, for some time before he embodied them in his writings. They had gradually been becoming familiar topics. The absence, therefore, or markedly slighter treat- ment of them in the Apology of A r is tides, harmonises with the supposition that it was produced some years before other examples of the same class of writings. It may be added that, as Harnack admits2, the passage which Eusebius quotes from the Apology of Quadratus makes for its having been addressed to Hadrian and (we may add) in the earlier part of his reign. But if already one Apology was written then, so may another have been ; and if Eusebius was right in regard to the one, this tends to confirm his credibility as to the other.
The Apology of Aristides contains a simple account of
1 The manner in which the two titles were combined, and little points in the text such as the plurals in the second title, need not here be considered, as they are at least not more difficult to account for on the view which I have advocated than on the other.
2 Chron. I. p. 270. I may further remark here, though it is a point of no consequence for our present enquiry, that Quadratus, the bishop of Athens, spoken of by Dionysius of Corinth (ap. Eus. H. £. iv. xxiii. i — 3) may well have been the same as the Christian Apologist in spite of what has been said as to the date of this Apology. If the account of Dionysius' letter to the Athenians in Eusebius is attentively read it will be seen that Dr Salmon (Diet, of Chr. Bio. IV. p. 523) and Mr J. R. Harris (Texts and Studies, I. i, p. n) have too hastily inferred therefrom that Quadratus, the bishop, must have been a contemporary of Dionysius.
Aristides on the Gospel 51
Christian faith and hope and life, more or less on the same lines as our Apostles' Creed and the practical teaching of the Didache. It is in general agreement1 with the Gospels, though it does not to any marked extent recall their language. The writer only professes to give the heathen emperor a slight notion of what Christianity is; he expressly alludes to the fuller knowledge of it which may be obtained from Christian writings2. This is the point which has special importance for us. One remark of Aristides, according to the Syriac Version, is of peculiar interest in connexion with the history of the use of the Gospels3. In Mr Harris' translation it stands thus: "This" (the Incarnation of the Son of God) " is taught from that Gospel which a little while ago was spoken among them as being preached; wherein if ye also will read, ye will comprehend the power that is upon it." The passage in which these words occur is placed at the same point in the Armenian Version as in the Syriac, and in both the arrangement of clauses, involving rather awkward repe- titions, is the same. In these respects the Greek of Barlaam and Josaphat differs, in a manner which reveals the hand of the adapter. The preliminary account of the Christian Faith given in the original at an early point in the treatise has been combined with the fuller one in the closing part, and the description itself has been simplified and condensed. Turning next to the actual words in question, we have to observe that the Armenian and the Greek each support the Syriac on a different point. The former represents the Gospel as a preaching, and passes over its embodiment in writing; the latter makes no allusion to the original oral proclamation, but asserts that the fame of Christ's appearing might be learnt " from that which is called among them (Christians) evangelical holy Scripture4." But further, this last expression
1 The following are the two most important differences, (i) It emphasises the part of the Jews in Our Lord's death somewhat more strongly than the Gospels; its words are "he was pierced by the Jews" ch. 2. This point will come before us again; see below, p. 98 n. 3, etc. (2) Like the Didache, ch. i. 2, it gives the rule of conduct to others in a negative form, ch. 15. Cp. p. 10 n. above.
2 See chh. 2, 16, 17. s See ch. 2.
4 Texts and Studies, I. i, p. 1 10 : £K TTJS irap ai/rots /caXouyu^s (ta.YYf^iKW ayias
4—2
52 Aristides on the Gospel
is manifestly later in form than that of the Syriac. The habit lies behind it of giving the name " Gospels " to the documents themselves in which the Gospel is contained, whereas in the language of the Syriac Version this is not implied. The use of the epithet " holy " in regard to the writing is an indication of a still later stage of thought. For all these reasons we may say with confidence that, whatever may be the case in other passages of the Syriac Version, it gives us in this instance the nearest, and we can hardly doubt a substantially accurate, representation of the original.
The words rendered by Mr Harris "which a little while ago was spoken among them as being preached " are some- what ambiguous1; but the sense of the sentence as a whole is clear, and it is the most direct reference which we possess to that important epoch in the life of the Early Church when writings took the place of oral testimony in the authentication of the facts which were the object of Christian faith and the inspiration of Christian conduct. If the conclusion to which we have come above as to the date of this Apology be correct, and if, at the time of its composition, the author had passed middle life, the last stages of the change in question may have fallen within his own recollection.
The Fragments of Papias.
The earliest express mention of works bearing the name of any of our evangelists comes to us through Papias. His Expositions of Oracles of the Lord, fragments of which have been preserved in Eusebius2, may probably have been written A.D. 140 — 150. The character of the work and the statements contained in the passages which Eusebius quotes from it have been made the subject of an immense amount of controversy. I take it as proved that the title of Papias' work and the description which he gives of. its object do not convey any
1 Raabe, ib. p. 3, translates "welches, wie bei ihnen erzahlt wird, seit kurzer Zeit verkiindigt worden ist"; Hennecke (T. u. U. IV. 3, p. 9) "welches seit kurzer Zeit, (wie) bei ihnen erzahlt wird, (dass es) verkiindigt worden ist."
2 H. E. III. 39.
Papias on a writing by Matthew 53
disparagement of written records of the Life and Teaching of Christ1. It also appears to me to have been abundantly shewn that there is no valid ground for doubting that the reference, in the fragment about a writing by Mark, is to our St Mark2. And this testimony is the more important because, for his account of the composition of this Gospel, Papias gives the authority of "the elder," apparently the Elder John, whom he describes as a personal disciple of the Lord.
In regard to these points apologists have succeeded in making good their position. On the other hand, the general effect of recent criticism has been to shew that there was more reason, than such writers even as Westcott and Lightfoot were willing to allow, in the view that the words of the fragment of Papias concerning a writing by Matthew — he " composed the ' Logia ' in the Hebrew tongue " — indicated a collection of Christ's sayings and discourses rather than a work of the form of our Gospel according to St Matthew, a narrative in which sayings and discourses are embedded. It has indeed been urged by the eminent scholars just named and by others that \6<yta does not properly mean i: discourses," but "oracles," and that the same term is applied to the Old Testament3. But the point of this criticism will be turned and its insufficiency as a reply indicated if we translate \6yi,a by a phrase which will most strictly bring out its meaning —
1 See Westcott (Canon, p. 71 ff.); Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. Rel. p. 155 ff. ; Harnack, Chron. I. 690, n. i.
2 Westcott, ib. p. 75 ff.; Lightfoot, ib. p. 163 ff. ; Harnack, ib. p. 691 f.
3 Westcott, ib. p. 74, n. 2; Lightfoot, ib. p. 173 ff. Cp. also J. A. Robinson, The Study of the Gospels, pp. 68 — 70. Dr Westcott, indeed, seems to some extent to anticipate the reply that will be made to him, and to endeavour to meet it (ib. n. i). He suggests that roi \6yta is an equivalent expression for "the Gospel — the sum of the words and works of Christ." No doubt we do regard the works, no less than the words, as "oracles"; but this is assuredly too subtle a thought to attribute to Papias and his age. Nor, so far as I know, could any illustration be adduced to confirm the view that rh. \6yta meant the same as rb €va.yyt\iov. The interesting and striking passage in Polyc. ad Phil. ch. 7, where the expression rot \6yia TOV Kvplov occurs, appears to be inconsistent therewith : — 8s B.V fj.r) 6/J.o\oyr) TO /^aprvpiov TOV vravpov, £K TOV dta^6\ov effriv KO.L 8s SLV fj.effoSevri TO. \6yia TOV Kvplov irpbs ras t'St'as tTridvfj.tas etc. If ret \6yt.a TOV Kvplov were equivalent to "the Gospel," the "testimony of the Cross" would be included in them.
54 Papias on a writing by Matthew
"oracular utterances." The real objections to taking the words " Matthew composed the Oracles " as referring to the composition of a Gospel like one of ours are (i) that books of the New Testament, as books, can hardly have been regarded as Divine Oracles so early as the time of Papias, still less as that of his informant, "the Elder," if he is here again reporting him; (2) that one who wrote a single Gospel could not be said on that account to have " composed tlie Oracles." But the words of Christ must from the first have been regarded as Divine Oracles1, and the work of one who had made it his principal aim to preserve these might well be described in the terms which we are considering. It is not necessary to suppose that all incidents would be passed over in such a record; indeed, we see in the Gospels that much of Christ's teaching was remembered, as also much of it had doubtless been given, in the form of answers to questions that were put to Him, or remarks called forth on particular occasions. Some narratives might also have been included for the sake of their own interest. Still we may suppose that it was the main purpose of the document in question to be a treasury of the Utterances of Christ, and that this was apparent in its contents and arrangement. It was just such a avvta^ TWV KvpLdK&v \6ycov (or \oyiwv2), " a putting together of the Dominical Words (or Oracles)," as Mark did not, according to the preceding fragment, attempt to supply. This contrast must, surely, have been intended by Papias or his informant3. Our Greek Gospel accg to St Matthew appears to be a composite work in which a source of the character just described, or matter derived from such a source, has been combined with St Mark, or with a document which is most nearly represented by St Mark. At first sight, then, it would seem natural to suppose that the writing by the Apostle Matthew of which Papias speaks was the non-Marcan source embodied in our first Gospel, and that the attribution of the
1 See B. Weiss, Introd, to New Testament, I. p. 28 ff. Eng. trans.
2 The text is doubtful : \6yuv is preferred by Heinichen.
3 Note also the precedence given in the same passage to "the things spoken" over "the things done " by the Christ, and to Mark's not having heard Him, over his not having followed Him.
Papias on a writing by Matthew 55
authorship of this Gospel to Matthew is thus explained and in part justified. This question, however, of the relation of the Apostle Matthew to the Gospel that bears his name cannot be thus readily disposed of. On turning to St Luke we see signs of the use of the same non-Marcan source as in St Matthew, and reasons are urged for holding that it is there most truly represented, at least in certain respects. If this is really the case, and if the common source ought to be identified with the writing which Papias ascribes to Matthew, how comes it, we are compelled to ask, that his name has been associated with our first Gospel? If, on the other hand, Matthew's writing has been most fully and accurately reproduced in the Gospel of which he has com- monly been supposed to be the author, and the third evangelist has nevertheless also used that document, it is strange that he should have dealt so freely, as he must have done, with the work of an apostle. We cannot profitably discuss this subject further now; we must recur to it here- after in connexion with a full enquiry into the origin of the Synoptic Gospels. For the present we can only note Papias' statement, and bear it in mind in order that hereafter we may reconcile it, if we find it possible to do so, with the results of internal criticism.
Continuing our examination of Papias' evidence we find that a time is spoken of when "everyone interpreted them (the " Logia" composed by Matthew) as he was able" (^/J/^TJ- vevae S' avra &>? 171; Svvarbs etcacrro^}. Plainly this cannot refer to written translations, at all events not to such as were more than fragments. If one complete written translation was in circulation it would probably be felt that the further efforts of individuals were unnecessary. At most two or three might seek to improve upon the version in existence : not " everyone " who was even competent to do so would try his hand at it1. We ought probably to take the words to mean that Christians who knew Hebrew as well as Greek translated from the precious document for the benefit of others who could not understand it, especially perhaps in the Christian
1 Resch (Agrapha, pp. 48 and 54 f.) appears to think that the words refer to a number of complete written versions ; but surely that cannot be the meaning.
56 Papias on a writing by Matthew
assemblies, after the manner of the Targumists in the Jewish synagogues, though it is not unlikely that pieces of transla- tion, longer or shorter, may also have been written down and preserved. I believe that when we consider the Synoptic Problem, we shall find these words of Papias' fragment to be of great importance, because they suggest the thought that the rendering of the Hebrew " Logia " may have taken place in a fragmentary manner by different persons, and shew how two Greek representatives of the original might naturally have been compiled, very differently arranged and in parts only substantially alike, but in other parts almost verbally the same.
We must now notice the tenses employed; they shew that the state of things described was already past. But is the point of view that of Papias or of one of those informants of an older generation to whom he refers ? In other words, is Papias speaking of a practice which he had either heard of, or even been himself familiar with, in former days, but which had now ceased ? Or is he reporting a statement by the Elder John, or someone of similar standing, concerning a change which had taken place within the experience of such an one ? The analogy of the fragment on Mark is in favour of the latter alternative ; but it should also be observed that even on the former supposition the time in question might be at least as early as the end of the first century.
How, then, did the period referred to contrast with the times that followed? Was 'the period of casual and frag- mentary rendering succeeded immediately by a stage during which a Version, in the strict sense of the term, of the Hebrew Collection of Christ's Words was in circulation, before the appearance of, and for a time alongside of, our St Matthew and our St Luke, in which the matter it con- tained was more or less fully incorporated? So far as the words in our small fragment go, this might have been the case, and the stage suggested might have extended even to Papias' earlier days. And, further, the instances that have come before us of parallelisms with our first Gospel in the Christian literature of Papias' age and before it. could be accounted for, if a document containing the teaching of Christ in the
Papias on a writing by Matthew 57
Matthaean form was current ; for the quotations are chiefly of Christ's sayings. Nevertheless the supposition in question is an improbable one. It is certain that not long after Papias' time, our first Gospel was held to be virtually identical with a Hebrew work by Matthew. Papias' own conception of the relation between the two may not have been precisely the same as that held by Christians of a generation younger than his own; he may have known that there was a difference in the extent and order of their subject-matter ; but he would naturally be disposed to make little of the difference rather than to emphasise it, and his view and that of his contempo- raries must at least have been such as would prepare the way for that which soon afterwards prevailed1. Moreover, we hear not a syllable concerning any Greek document by Matthew distinct from the Canonical St Matthew. It is difficult to see how our first Gospel could have been accepted so early as it was for the work of the Apostle Matthew, if another Greek work which was believed to be a translation of the Hebrew writing by him, and which corresponded more closely with its general form and limits, was in existence during the first half of the second century. I would add that the relations of our Greek St Matthew and St Luke can, I believe, be best explained, if there was no interval, or none of appreciable duration, between the time of fragmentary oral and written translations, and the composition of each of those Gospels, independently of one another, approximately at the same epoch, before the close of the first century.
It remains only to be said in connexion with Papias, that there is good reason to believe that he used the Fourth Gospel2, and that the mere absence of evidence as to his use of St Luke does not supply a ground for thinking that he was unacquainted with it or did not recognise it as genuine3.
1 Cp. Harnack, Chron. I. p. 692 f.
2 Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. Rel. pp. 186 and 194^ ; Harnack, Chron. I. p. 658 f. Schmiedel's reasoning (Encycl. Bibl. II. p. 2548 (48 b}} seems to me, I confess, altogether belated. He writes as if Lightfoot had never published his article on "the silence of Eusebius," Essays on Sup. Rel. ii.
3 Lightfoot, ib. p. 178.
58 The so-called Second Epistle of Clement
The so-called Second Epistle of Clement.
The so-called Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians appears to illustrate in more than one respect a stage in the history of the Canon. On the one hand, the idea of Christian Scriptures comparable to those of the Old Testament and forming in some sort a recognised collection already exists. The words which we find in Mt. ix. 13 and Mk ii. 17, "I came not to call righteous persons but sinners," are introduced with the formula "another Scripture saith," just after a passage from the Old Testament. Again, shortly after a reference to the " Oracles of God," words corresponding to Our Lord's language as given at Luke vi. 32, 35 are quoted as such a Divine Oracle1. Again, the writer founds an important truth upon the teaching of ra ftift\ia ical ol aTrocrroXoi (ch. 14). By the former of these he probably means the Old Testament. Under the latter, though he seems in the context to have some Epistles of the New Testament specially in mind, he may well include Gospels, as the phrase of Justin, " the Apostolic Memoirs," shews. Thus he conjoins writings of the New Covenant with those of the Old, although the same expression, " the books " i.e. " the bible," does not yet cover both. On the other hand it is evident that the writer did not distinguish between the value of the contents of the four Gospels and other Evangelic matter. No works are cited by name, and, although some of the sayings of Our Lord which he quotes correspond on the whole closely with sayings recorded in the Gospels and may fairly be held to have been derived thence, he makes considerable use of another source, or of other sources. One saying which he quotes corresponds with part of a passage which, according to Clement of Alexandria, was to be found in the Gospel accg to tlie Egyptians*. It is, therefore, not improbable that the same work supplied other pieces of Apocryphal matter contained in the Second Epistle of Clement*. For our present purpose,
1 X^yei 6 0e<4s, Oi) x^P^ etc-) 2 Clem. ch. 13, see Lightfoot inloc. and Harnack, Chron. I. p. 446, n. r.
2 Cp. i Clem. ch. 12 with Clem. Alex. Strom, in. 13, p. 553.
3 For some remarks on the range of circulation and the character of the Gospel accg to the Egyptians, see below, pp. 265-8.
-
Its interest in relation to the Canon 59
however, it will be sufficient to observe that an appreciable quantity of such matter is introduced there1, and that it is treated as equally authentic with that which was, or might have been, derived from the Four Gospels2.
One other passage may be referred to which brings before us several problems connected with the Evangelic quotations in early writers. " For the Lord saith in the Gospel," writes our author, " if ye have not kept that which is little, who will give you that which is great? for I say to you that he who is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much." The saying here quoted may be the result of a fusion of Lu. xiv. IO with Mt. xxv. 21, 23. But to all appearance the writer regards the words as forming a single saying. He does not seem to be summarising Our Lord's teaching on a particular point. Unless, therefore, it is simply a case of confusion in the memory, he probably knew the words as so given in some writing, or at least as commonly quoted thus. His use of the phrase " in the Gospel " does not, we may observe, shew that he only knew of one Gospel. The habit in early times, which has been adverted to, of thinking rather of the common substance of the Gospel than of particular forms in which it was presented, sufficiently explains the employment of the singular. Nevertheless he would seem, as we have said, to have had some particular embodiment in view. These considera- tions open up more than one possibility. He may be quoting from some harmony of the Gospels, a predecessor of that one which Tatian compiled not long after the middle of the century, or from a body of Our Lord's teaching which was orally delivered, or from some Gospel now lost into which the words had passed from tradition, or in which the language of our Gospels had been reproduced with alterations.
It will, then, be readily perceived that it is a matter of some importance for us to determine as far as possible the date of this work and the place of its origin. So long as it
1 See, besides, ch. 12, chh. 4 end, 5 and perhaps 9.
2 On Resch's view (Agrapha, pp. 109, 195 — 204) that 2 Clem. ch. 12 preserves for us an authentic saying of Christ which was " contained in a Gospel-source used already by Paul," and the extremely fanciful argumentation by which he supports it, see Zahn, Kanon, n. p. 636 n. 4.
60 The so-called Second Epistle of Clement
was known only in a mutilated form the hypothesis was a tempting one that it was in fact the letter written circ. A.D. 170 by Soter, bishop of Rome, to the Church at Corinth, a portion of the reply to which by the contemporary bishop of Corinth, Dionysius, is given us by Eusebius (H. E. IV. 23). Dionysius refers to the Epistle of Clement, which it was (he says) the practice of the Church of Corinth to read from time to time in their assemblies. They will do the same, Dionysius proceeds, with the letter just received. Accordingly some have supposed that owing to this second letter from the Church of Rome to that of Corinth having been treated like and kept with the first, the more distinguished authorship belonging to the first came to be attributed to the second also.
Objections to the view that the so-called Second Epistle of Clement could be the letter referred to by Dionysius were urged even before the recovery of the lost ending. But since that fortunate event it has become impossible to regard the work as a letter at all. It was a homily composed for delivery in a Christian assembly. Nevertheless, Harnack1 still adheres to the view that it was sent by Soter to Corinth, though accompanied (it may be) by a short letter, and that it is the communication referred to by Dionysius. He admits that a difficulty is created by the homiletic form of the docu- ment, but he maintains that its attribution to Clement may still be best accounted for by the supposition in question.
To judge of this we must compare the rival explanation. Let me state it in the simplest manner possible. The genuine Epistle of Clement and our homily, by some author whose name was either unknown or not held to be of im- portance, had been brought together in some manuscript volume at Corinth which happened to be the one through which the latter work, and to some extent the former also, became known to the Church of later times. In a volume which contained the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, there was room after it for this homily, and the space had been utilised, since parchment was precious, by copying it in there. The two writings may well have been numbered
1 Chron. I. p. 444.
not sent to Corinth by Soter 61
a and ft in the volume, and while the former bore the title KAHMENTOS IIPO2 KOPIN0IOT2 the latter, too, whether it had really been, or was supposed to have been, a sermon addressed to the Corinthian Church, might have been inscribed IIPOS KOPIN0IOT2. But even the mere collocation would be sufficient to account for confusion having arisen after one or two generations1.
Now the gist of Harnack's argument is that there are objections alike to this view and to that which connects the homily with Soter, but that in the latter case they are far less serious. He urges that, even before the time of Eusebius and perhaps as early as the beginning of the third century, our document was called a letter, and he seems to think that both theories are simply different modes of escape from the difficulty, that this is not a true description of it2. But here assuredly he fails to meet the point of the case against him. The force of the language of Dionysius cannot be thus set aside. His allusions are in no wise satisfied by supposing that the Church of Rome had forwarded a copy of an old sermon, preached in one of their own assemblies, to the Church of Corinth, together with a few introductory words. They clearly suggest that a letter written in the name of the Church at Rome to that at Corinth had been sent to accompany a gracious gift to brethren in distress, and that in this letter the one Church had admonished the other, as Christian brethren and Churches were then wont to exhort one another in their correspondence.
Again, Harnack unwarrantably exaggerates the difficulty of the view he is opposing. He assumes that the communi- cation from Soter must in any case have been originally united to that from Clement, and that it must have been forcibly dislodged from its position by our homily, if the latter was a different work. But there is no ground for supposing that any such formal connexion between the later and the earlier letter from Rome was ever established. The letter from Soter would indeed most probably be kept, along with other similar documents, in the Church book-chest at Corinth.
1 See Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt i, II. p. 197 ff.
2 Harnack, Chron. I. pp. 443-4.
62 The so-called Second Epistle of Clement
But we do not know how frequently it was read, or how long the habit of reading it publicly continued, if indeed the habit was ever formed. The cordial expressions of Dionysius on first receiving the letter cannot be taken as proof that this use was made of it for any considerable period. But even if it was, the copying of our homily into the same volume with the Epistle of Clement, perhaps not before the third century, might be due to wholly independent causes, such as the relation of the length of the document to the space of parch- ment to be filled.
Once more, Harnack entirely passes over a serious dif- ficulty in his own hypothesis. If our homily came from Soter, how was its identification with so eminent a man as Soter lost, and why was not his covering letter written in the name of the Church of Rome, which must surely have been prized, copied along with the rest ? Here at all events there would have been a case of forcible detachment, and one which is most improbable1.
We need not then hesitate to reject the notion that the so-called Second Epistle of Clement was transmitted to Corinth by Bishop Soter, circ. A.D. 170.
But further, it should be observed that Harnack himself has been compelled to modify his original theory in regard to Soter's part in the matter. He now admits, as everyone must admit, that the document was not originally written with the object of being used thus. There is also nothing in it to shew that it was by Soter himself. Indeed it would be easier to understand its being attributed to Clement if it was not, and if it was a comparatively old writing. All that Harnack would obtain, even if his argument were valid, would be, that it must have been composed before the time of Soter's corre- spondence with the Church of Corinth2. How long before
1 "Man muss aber die Unwahrscheinlichkeiten in den Kauf nehmen dass...die eingeschobene Predigt genau oder fast genau aus derselben Zeit stammt wie der verdrangte Brief und dass sie wahrscheinlich auch aus derselben Zeit stammt wie der verdrangte und einst neben dem I. Clemensbrief hochgeschatzte Brief ausge- gangen ist." Chron. I. p. 449. He forgets that on his theory the name of Soter must have been "verdrangt."
2 Harnack overlooks this altogether. Having shewn to his own satisfaction that it was most probably sent by Soter to Corinth, he jumps to the conclusion
probably composed at Corinth 63
must still be decided on internal grounds. And it certainly ought to be assumed to have been considerably before. We have clear evidence as to an attitude to the four Gospels on the one hand and to apocryphal Gospels on the other, in the Church of Rome soon after that time, so different from that which the Second Epistle of Clement betokens, that if this homily is to be taken to represent the feeling and thought of that Church when it was written, a generation or two at least must have intervened to account for the change.
There are other indications in the work unfavourable to the supposition that it was composed in Rome in the third quarter of the second century. Its Christology is crude. Again, the reference to the presbyters and silence as to the bishop in ch. 17, though not strictly inconsistent with the existence already of "the monarchical episcopate," is at least most in accord with the habits of thought and speech of the earlier decades of the century. Apart from the hypothesis as to Soter, there is little reason for connecting our homily with Rome. Harnack urges analogies between it and Hernias' Shepherd, but they are far from convincing1. Corinth may with most probability be assigned as its birthplace. From Ccrinth the knowledge of it must in any case have spread, and it is therefore natural to suppose that it was to the Church at Corinth that it was first preached. It also con- tains allusions which may thus most satisfactorily be ex- plained2. Unfortunately, however, we know next to nothing about the history of belief and organisation in the Church at Corinth during the second century; but if we assume that this Church partook in the general movements of Church-life in Asia Minor and in Rome we may with most probability assign this work to circ. A.D. 140.
that it had not long been written, and remarks, What a significant fact for the history of the Canon ! (Ib. p. 449, n. 2.) And then afterwards he builds upon this conclusion (ib. pp. 617 and 623), as if it were certain, though his conclusion on the point of literary history which he has discussed is at best doubtful, and though as to the date or authorship he has not attempted to prove anything and could not if he tried. Such a use of questionable results no doubt facilitates lucid exposition of a writer's own theories, but it can hardly be considered a sound method of procedure.
1 See Harnack, Chron. I. p. 445, and cp. Lightfoot, b. p. 200 f.
2 See Lightfoot, ib. p. 197.
64 The Exegetica of Basilides
Marcion, Basilides and Valentinus.
Some few years before the middle of the second century the chief founders of Gnostic schools had appeared, and three of the greatest of them, who were specially influential in the West, Marcion, Basilides and Valentinus1, must be noticed in connexion with our enquiry.
It seems to be legitimate at the present day to take it as proved that " Marcion's Gospel" was a mutilated form of the Gospel according to St Luke, and I do not intend to discuss the point here2. The question of the use of our Gospels by Basilides is a more open one. It will be right that I should examine it with some care, though the results obtained may, I fear, be thought unsatisfactory.
Eusebius informs us, on the authority of Agrippa Castor, that Basilides wrote a work in 24 books "on the Gospel3." This is doubtless the work referred to as his " Exegetica " by Clement of Alexandria, who cites three passages from its twenty-third book4. On its authority the statements of Clement as to the teaching of Basilides appear to be founded. The same work is, no doubt, meant in the Acta ArcJielai ch. 55, where it is called Tractattis, and a quotation is made from the thirteenth book5.
Origen, as rendered by Jerome, declares that Basilides " dared to write a Gospel and to call it after his own name6." Such a " Gospel," first drawn up by him, has been frequently supposed to have formed the basis of his Commentaries. But there is no trace of the use of any such " Gospel " by his followers, nor any other allusion to it in early writers, even
1 On their dates cp. Harnack, Chron. I. p. 297 ff., and 289 ff.
2 I would refer the reader especially to Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, pp. 204 — 230. The validity of his argument based on Marcion's read- ings (p. 230 ff.) is more questionable, in view of the developments of textual criticism since this work appeared (1876). For it now seems probable that the " Western " text contained at least some readings older than that which Westcott and Hort called "Neutral."
3 e£s TO etfayyAiop. Eus. ff. E. IV. vii. 6, 7.
4 Strom. IV. 12, pp. 599, 600. 8 Routh, Rel. Sacr. v. p. 197. 6 Horn. I. in Luc.
The Exegetica of Basilides 65
where we might have expected that it would have been mentioned, if it existed1. It seems probable that Jerome has misunderstood and misrepresented Origen, who may have meant only that Basilides had ventured to put forth his own view of the Christian revelation and to call this the Gospel2.
Basilides claimed, it would seem, that he had been a disciple of a certain Glaucias, who was " interpreter to Peter," as Valentinus was said to have been of Theodas, who was a friend of the Apostle Paul; while they and likewise Marcion made much of traditions which were said to have been derived from Matthias3. These are interesting illustrations of the disposition of the Gnostics to appeal to Apocryphal sources of information which they professed were Apostolic. There is no reason to doubt that Basilides also adduced, and interpreted in his own way, many passages from our Gospels ; but the only one which we can with probability infer that he used, from the direct evidence as to the contents of his Exegetica, is the parable of Dives and Lazarus4.
As yet, however, we have not considered the account of the system of Basilides given in Hippolytus's Refutation of all Heresies*, in which two quotations from St John and one from St Luke are apparently attributed to Basilides himself6. Hippolytus's representation has been thought to be wholly
1 E.g. by Irenaeus when he is speaking of Gnostic audacity in regard to the Gospels, Adv. Haer. in. xi. 9; or again in connexion with the contrast which Tertullian draws (De Praescr. Haer. 38).
2 The language of Irenaeus (ib.} regarding the Valentinian Gospel of Truth should also be compared. See Westcott, Canon, pp. 307 ff.
3 Clem. Strom, vn. 17, pp. 898, 900; Hipp. Ref. Omn. Haer. vii. 20, i.
4 See Acta Archelai referred to above. Though the interpretation put upon Basilides' words in this document is probably more or less mistaken, this is of course no reason for doubting the genuineness of the reference to Luke.
It does not seem justifiable to assume with Zahn, p. 767, that in the passages of the Exegetica ap. Clem. Strom, iv. 42, pp. 599, 600, Basilides is commenting on Jn ix. 1—3. It also seems clear that, at Strom, ill. i, pp. 508-9, Clement in citing an application which was made of the words at Mt. xix. n, 12 is quoting the disciples of Basilides, not, as Zahn, ib. and Hort (Diet, of Chr. Bio. I. p. 270**) contend, Basilides himself. If it had been made by Basilides, Clement would have said so in order more effectually to condemn the degenerate Basilidians of his own day whom he is reproving, just as, in the same context, when he cites the actual words of Isidore, he notes the fact.
6 vii. 20 — 27.
6 Jn i. 9 in Hipp. Refut. ch. 22; Jn ii. 4 in ch. 27, Lu. i. 35 in ch. 26.
S. G. 5
66 Hippolytus* s account of the system
untrustworthy by various critics, including some of the most recent, mainly on the ground that it differs widely from that of Irenaeus, and is not supported by that of Clement of Alexandria1. In regard to differences from Irenaeus I would first remark that the fact of Irenaeus being an older witness does not of itself make him a better one in a matter of this kind. If he had simply gathered his information from professed disciples of Basilides whom he had met, — and he does not imply that he was depending on any more authentic source, — he might more easily have been misled as to the chief points of the system, than a later writer upon it, who derived his knowledge from a document or documents. A comparison of the statements of Irenaeus with those of Clement of Alexandria, who had had good opportunities of becoming, and evidently was, well informed as to both the original and later teaching of the sect, is not favourable to the former writer. We may note in particular that Irenaeus attributes an encouragement of license to the School, which Clement of Alexandria expressly tells us was characteristic only of its later members, and in direct conflict with the teaching of its founders and their genuine disciples2. It is to be added that on other points also, if Clement does not support Hippolytus, still less does he support Irenaeus. But in point of fact, as Dr Hort has shewn, the view of Basilidean doctrine given by Hippolytus is, both as regards thought and language, confirmed by Clement in important particulars, and fully as much as in the circumstances we are entitled to expect. For Clement in his Stromateis expressly
1 Salmon, Herniathena, v. (1885), PP- 401-2. Stahelin, l^ext. u. Untersuch. VI. 3, pp. 85 ff. Zahn, ib. p. 765. Harnack, Gesch. d. Altchrist. Litt. I. i, p. 157 ; Chron. I. p. 291. The last-named goes so far as to say that the question is no longer an open one.
2 Cp. Iren. I. xxiv. 5 ("habere autem et reliquarum operationum usum indiffer- entem, et universae libidinis"), with Clem. Al. Strom, m. i, p. 510.
It is also well pointed out by Drummond ("/r Basilides quoted in the Philo- sophumena?" in the American Journal of Biblical Literature, 1892, p. 145) that the treatment of the subject of the sufferings of Jesus by Clement (Strom, iv. ch. 12, p. 600) is inconsistent with the view that Simon of Cyrene suffered in place of Jesus, which Irenaeus makes part of the system.
There can be no ground, so far as I am aware, for including Agrippa Castor, as Zahn does, p. 765, among our informants with whom Hippolytus's information is inconsistent.
of Basilides is trustworthy 67
limits himself to ethical questions and defers the discussion of metaphysical and cosmological ones. The ethical principles and the terminology of the system as represented in Clement agree well with its metaphysics and cosmology as represented in Hippolytus1. Our conclusion is that Hippolytus's section on the Heresy of Basilides gives a trustworthy account of the doctrines of the Master and his genuine disciples. This result is an important one for the history of Gnosticism, and it is
1 Hort, ib. pp. 270, -271. Drummond, ib. pp. 146-7, adds the use of tvepye- reiv and evepyere'iffdai, Refut. ch. 22, pp. 364, 2, 3 etc. Let me also point out the similar language about the Will of God. Compare Clem. Strom, iv. 12, pp. 601-2, rb \€y6fj,€vov OeXy/jLa rod 6fov, and sequel, with Refut. vn. 21, avoriTws, di>aia'dr)Tws...a.veTridvfj.if)Tws KdfffJ.ov i}d£\riffe TroiTjcrai. To 5£ TjdtXijffe, \tyu, 077cri, ff-r}fj.a<Tias -^&piv, dfleXTjrws /cat aPOTjrws /cat avaLffdrjTM.
The considerations put forward by Salmon and Stahelin on the other side seem to be without weight. Salmon's contention is that certain similarities with Valentinianism render the account suspicious. Seeing, however, that the theories of Basilides and Valentinus proceeded from the same movement of thought, that both teachers shared to a large extent the same intellectual traditions, and that their adherents, if not the heresiarchs themselves, must have often met and engaged in discussion, it would be strange if there were no points of contact in thought and language between them, and if none of the same texts of Scripture had been used by both. Again, as to the use by both Basilides and Valentinus of the same words from Prov. i. 7, on which Dr Salmon comments, Hippolytus is confirmed by Clement (Strom. 1 1. p. 448), who is specially clear as to the employ- ment of them by Basilides and his school.
Stahelin (pp. 46 — 54) discovers some phrases which occur in more than one of Hippolytus's accounts of different heretics; but they are such as might proceed from Hippolytus himself without rendering his information generally untrustworthy.
Lastly, the doctrine set forth by Hippolytus — so far from its being unworthy of the great Gnostic teacher — will, I am convinced, if considered in an unprejudiced spirit, appear to be marked by real intellectual power. It is not fairly chargeable with the inconsistencies which Stahelin finds in it, p. 89 ff. Moreover, in the exposition contained in chh. 20 — 22, when read connectedly, it is not difficult to trace an attempt, that is far from despicable, to conceive and express the idea of the Absolute, — which must be without attributes because attributes limit that to which they are applied, — and, further, to grapple with the thought of the self- limitation of the Absolute in Creation. There are, also, remarks which are very suggestive in connexion with the Gnostic use of myths. I may adduce Dr Hort's judgment as to "the freshness and power" of the extracts generally. Ib. p. 271. For myself I would say only that I realised for the first time many years ago, in reading Hippolytus's account of the doctrines of Basilides, without having been in any way directed thereto, how a great Gnostic system might represent a high and strong intellectual effort. See also Drummond, ib. p. 151 ff., on Stahelin's strictures.
With regard to the objection founded on the statements of the Acta Archelai see Hort, ib. pp. 276-7.
5—2
68 Uncertainty as to the source
favourable rather than not to the view that the quotations from the Gospels to which we have referred were made by Basilides himself. But this latter point needs further con- sideration.
At the commencement of his account of this heresy, Hippolytus refers not only to Basilides, but to Isidore, remarking that the latter was " the genuine son and disciple " of Basilides. He adds also that the whole School, as well as the two just named, were guilty of misrepresenting not only the Apostle Matthias, from whom they claimed to have received special traditions, but the Saviour Himself. Immediately after this comprehensive reference, Hippolytus uses the singular — ^ai — and does so again and again, and, among other places, in introducing the passages con- cerning the quotations from the Gospels according to St John and St Luke, to which allusion has been made. What then is the force of this formula <f>r)ari, "he says"? In view of the manner in which it is introduced both here and in the accounts which Hippolytus gives of other systems1, it is probable that he uses it in accordance with Greek idiom, when a theory is being discussed, with a somewhat indefinite reference, like our "it is said." In some passages where it occurs, Hip- polytus may well be giving a summary, partly in his own words, of the opinions which he is describing. There are others, however, in which the remarks introduced thereby have all the appearance of being actual quotations, and this holds especially of the citations and applications of passages of Scripture. But in regard to these, too, it is necessary to ask whether the quotations are made from the heresiarch himself, or from Isidore, or some other member of the school ;
1 See for example Hippolytus's section on the Naassenes where <t>i)<jl is more than once used, though no individual is mentioned to whom it can refer. Drummond points this out, ib. p. 134, but apparently does not feel that it renders its purport in the section on Basilides more uncertain, as it surely must. Dr Drummond maintains not only that Hippolytus's account of the system of Basilides is trustworthy, in which I fully concur, but also that it is "highly probable that the writer quoted by Hippolytus is Basilides himself," about which I cannot feel so confident. Dr Sanday, however, to whom (Inspiration^ p. 308) I am indebted for having my attention drawn to Dr Drummond's article, considers that the latter has made good his position.
of Hippolytus s quotations 69
and yet this is a point which it seems impossible to decide. The exposition of the system from which Hippolytus has drawn might well have been given in the Exegetica by way of comment, for example, on the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel. On the other hand, the circumstance that Hip- polytus alludes to the claim of Isidore, as well as of Basilides, to possess traditions derived from Matthias, and the stress which he lays on the fact that Isidore was a genuine disciple of his father, give colour to the supposition that he has a treatise by Isidore before him1. Even, however, if Hippolytus's source was not a work by Basilides himself, it might have contained quotations from him ; and at any rate the use of the third and fourth Gospels by a genuine disciple would raise a presumption in favour of their having been used by the Master likewise.
The case as to the use of our Gospels by Valentinus, closely resembles that in regard to Basilides. In the account given by Hippolytus of his doctrines and of those of his School'2 interpretations of texts from St Luke and St John occur which are introduced by the same formula "he says3." And the same kind of doubt hangs over its employment, a doubt which cannot be resolved, because we are unable to examine the documents from which Hippolytus drew his information4. It has, however, been forcibly urged that the whole terminology of the Valentinian system, which must as to its main features go back to Valentinus himself, implies acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel5.
1 Zahn (i. p. 765, n. 4) also remarks that there is a "suspiciously modern stamp " in the formulas of citation from New Testament Scriptures which form part, apparently, of the extracts. See tv rots euayyeXiois, Ref. 22, p. 360; and cis ytypa-rrTai, or cos 17 ypa<j>Ti X^yet, in introducing quotations from the Epistles of St Paul, ch. 25, p. 368, 375 ; ch. 26, p. 372 etc.
2 Ref. VI. 29—55.
3 Jn x. 8 and Lu. i. 35 in ch. 35.
4 I am unable to see that there is any clear distinction between them, as Westcott held, Canon, p. 297 ff. and p. 305 n. 4.
5 See Westcott, ib.\ Salmon, Introd. to New Test, p. 53 f.
70 Parallelisms with the Gospels
ADDITIONAL NOTE I. TO CHAP. II.
PARALLELISMS WITH THE GOSPELS IN THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES.
Did. i. 2—5. f] p.cv ovv 686? TTJS £(orjs €O~TIV avTrj- .......................................... (l)
, ayaTTjjtret? TOV Qeov TOV Trotrjcravrd o~f \
8fVTCpOV TOV 7T\T)(rioV (TOV to? O~(aVTOV J
irdvTa. 8f o<ra tav 6(\T)o~T]s p,r) yivfcrda'i (rot, »cat crv aXA&> /a?) Troifi ....... (3)
TOVTWV 8e T&V Xoycoi/ fj 8i8a)(T) fffTiv avTTj" ................................. (4)
evXoyciTf rovs KaTap(op.(vovs vp.iv, .......................................... (5)
vrrep T
VTJO-TfVfTf 8f VTTfp TU)V 8l(i)K6vTQ)V Vfjids' '
Troi'a yap ^apis^ eav ayairarf TOVS dyair&vTas vp.as; ..................... (7)
OV^l KO.I TO. fdvT) TO {IVTO TTOIOVQ-IV ; .......................................... (8)
vp.ds 8e dyanaTf TOVS p40~ovvTas vp,as, ....................................... (9)
KOI oi>x (£(T€ CX&PUV ............................................................ (lo)
airf-)(ov Ttov (rapKK&v KOI <ra>^aTiKcoi/ f7ridvp.ia>v ............................ (")
cdv Tts crot 8ai paTTicrp-a fls TTJV 8(£iav <riayova
avTa <a TTJV urjv,
KOI €(TT) Tf\fiOS' .................................................................. (l3)
tav dyyapfvarj trt TIS p.i\iov cv, viraye P.CT' OVTOV dvo- .................. (I4-)
fav apT) TIS TO ip.dTiov crot», 86? airw KOI TOV ^iraii/a' ..................... (^5)
eav Aa/Si; TIS diro aov TO vov, p.f) aTraiVft- .................................... (16)
ov8c yap dvvao-ai ................................................................ ('?)
iravT\ TO) aiTovvTi o~f 8i'8ou, »cat p,rj diratTfi" ................................. (!8)
Tratrt yap dt\€i 8i8oa-6ai o irarr^p e< T&V I8i<t>v ^apKr/ioTwi/ ............. 09)
p.a<dpios o 8t8our Kara TTJV fVTo\r)v ddqws yap toriv oval rai \ap.fld- ri' (I p.(v yap xP(>iav fXa)V ^a/*$«"« *& ddqtos «oraf 6 8< p.r) xP(lav
KOI ft? Tl, (V (TUVO^ 8( yfv6p.(V(>S f^fTO-
irtpl <Sv tirpa^f^ ......................................................... (20)
*cai OVK. t£(\(V(T(Tai (KfWfv p.(xpis ov ajroSo) TOV (Q-x^Tov Ko8pdvTTjv. (2l)
in the Didache 71
(1) Cp. Mt. vii. 14 >7 6Sof T) airdyovcra eir TTJV farjv.
(2) Cp. Mk xii. 30, 31, Mt. xxii. 37 — 39. The distinction between "the first" and "the second" is made most clearly in Mk, and next to Mk in Mt.
(3) Nearer to Mt. vii. 12 than to Lu. vi. 31.
(5) Lu. vi. 28: exact except that Lu. has vp.as instead of vp.lv. This precept is probably to be omitted at Mt. v. 44.
(6) Nearest to Mt. v. 44 />, which has StcoKtWooi', whereas Lu. has
(7) Lu. vi. 32 (almost exact).
(8) Cp. Mt. V. 47 • °^X' *a' °'1 f^VKoi TO ailTO TTOIOIXTIV ,'
(9) Cp. Lu. vi. 27. Not quite so close to Mt. v. 44 (lectio recta).
(12) Cp. Mt. v. 39 £; Lu. vi. 29 is not so like.
(13) Cp. Mt. v. 48.
(14) Mt. v. 41 (almost exact); there is nothing to correspond in Luke. (15), (16), (18) Cp. Lu. vi. 29 b and 30 ; Mt. v. 40 and 42 is not so like. (19) May well have been suggested by Lu. vi. 35.
(21) Cp; Mt. v. 26 ; Lu. xii. 59 is not so like.
Did. xvi. i.
yprjyopf'iTe inrep TTJS fays vp-cav (l)
aXXa yivftrdf eroi/zor (3)
ov yap oi'Sare TTJV &pav ev TJ 6 Kvpios T)p,a>v ep^erai (4)
Cp. Lu. xii. 37, 39, 35, 40 ; and Mt. xxiv. 42, 44. (4) is closer to Mt., but there is a parallel to (2) only in Luke.
The prayer which "the Lord in the Gospel commanded us to pray" is given at Did. vm. 2, most nearly as in Mt.
The saying contained only in Mt. vii. 6, P.TJ Score ro ayiov Tols given as spoken by the Lord at Did. IX. 5.
72 Parallelisms with the Gospels
ADDITIONAL NOTE II. TO CHAP. II.
PARALLELISMS BETWEEN THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS AND THE FOUR GOSPELS.
i. Parallelisms with both St Matthew and St Mark, and in some cases also St Luke, as well as sentences in which the two former seem to be closely combined1.
(O] V. 3, VJ. 5. OVTOl €1(TIV €%OVTfS p.ev TTIOTIV, f%OVT(S 8f KOI 7T\OVTOV
TOV alwvos TOVTOV. oTav yfvrjTat $Xt>^tf, 5ia TOV TT\OVTOV avrGiv /cat Sta ray Trpayp,aTfias dirapvovvTai TOV Kvptov avTotv.
S. 9, XX. I, 2. ol p.fv Tpi'/3oXot fla~iv ol TrXouo-iot, at 8e anavdai ol ev rat? TT pay pare tat? TCIIS iroiKiXais ep,TT€<pvpp.€Voi aVoTrXaixui'Tai Trviyopevoi
VTTO TU>V 7Tpd£((i)V aVTWV.
Ib. xxi. I. TO df -rrpbs TO.IS pi£ais £*7pflj rives 8e KOL OTTO TOV 17X101; ^T)paiv6p.evai etc.
Cp. Mt. xiii. 6, 7, 21, 22; Mk iv. 6, 7, 17, 18, 19.
(b] S. 5, ii. 2, 3- f^6 Tls dypov K.OI SovXovs TroXXovy, xai p-epos TI TOV dypov f<pvT(vo-cv dp.7T(\a)va. He chose out one faithful servant and said to him ; Aa/3e TOV a^iTreXeova TOVTOV ov f(pvTfvo~a <al vapdKO)O~ov etc. Then the Master fgfjXQc els TTJV d7ro8r)p,iav.
Ib. 6. 7rpoo-Ka\€o~dp.(vos ovv TOV vibv avTov TOV dyaTrrjToVj ov K\rjpov6fjLOV etc.
Cp. Mt. xxi. 33, 38, Mk xii. i, 5—7, Lu. xx. 9, 13, 14; x however, should be compared with (ppayp.bv irfpudrjuev in Mt. and Mk, which is not found and has no parallel in Luke. Traits peculiar to Luke, one found only in Mk and Lu., and one or two less distinct ones peculiar to Matthew, are to be observed in the same context. See other headings.
(£•) S. 9, xxix. i — 3. The believers from the twelfth mountain are like very babes ; they have ever continued free from guile and childlike. 6Voi ovv 8iap.(v(iTf, he continues, »cat co~€o-6f &s TO. /3pc'<^>t;, Ka<iav p,T) TrdvTtov TUV 7rpofipT)p.fvu)v fv8o£oT(poi fO'ta'Qf irdvTa yap TO. ftpf(pT) eo~Ti Trapa TO) Q(a> Kal Trpaira Trap' avT<&. p,a<dpioi ovv vp.fls, oo~oi av nprjT€ d(p' eavTwv TTJV irovr)piavy evSvarjoOf 8e TTJV aKaniav irp&Toi iravTutv {rjo-fo-df TO) 0ew.
Cp. Mt. xviii. i — 4, 10, xix. 13 — 15; Mk ix. 35 — 37, x. 13 — 16.
One or two touches in Hernias reproduce Mk, while the connexion is somewhat closer to Mt.
1 For convenience these are given under this heading, instead of being referred to twice over under i and 3.
in the Shepherd of Hermas 73
(<t) S. 9, XXV. I, 2. (K 8( TOV opovs TOV oytioov, ov T)<rav at TroXXat nrjyai, Kal iracra f) KTIO~IS TOV Kvpiov fVorifero ex TG>I> Trrjy&v, ol irt<TT(v<ravT(s
TOIOVTOI fl<TLV aTTOOToXoi ACat 8l.8d(TKa\Ol OI KTjpV^aVTfS els O\OV TOV
Kocrpov Kal ol 8i8d£avTes o-fp.v£)s KOI ayv&s TOV \6yov TOV Kvpiov. Cp. Mt. xxviii. 19, 20; Mk xvi. 15.
2. Parallelisms with St Matthew.
M. 4, i. 5, 6. If a husband discovers that his wife, a Christian, is living in adultery, and she does not repent, but adheres to her fornication (Jwtptvfl Ti) iropvcia avTrjs), what is he to do? The answer is 'Arro- Xuo-arco avTTjv, KO.\ 6 dvrjp e'0' eaimu p.fveTa>' eav 8e diroXvo~as TTJV yvvalna CTepav yapr)o-7], *al UVTOS ftot^arat. This passage plainly has Mt. xix. 9 in view and not Mk x. 11 or Lu. xvi. 18.
S. 8, iii. 2. TO Sfvdpov TOVTO TO p.€ya TO o-K€7rd£ov TTfdia <a\ opt] Kal irao-av TTJV yf)i>, vofjios Qcov eWii/ 6 Solely els oXov TOV Kwrpov 6 8e OVTOS vlos Qeov eori Krjpv^dfls els TO. Tre'para TJJS yijs' ol 8e VTTO TTJV Xaol ovTfs, etc.
Cp. Mt. xiii. 31.
S. 5, ii. 2. Perhaps the title 6 Seo-Trdrqy may be compared with
in Mt. xxi. 33.
Ib. v. 2. 6 dypos 6 KocrfJLOS OVTOS eo~Tiv. Cp. Mt. xiii. 37.
M. 11, 1 6. f'xfis dfjiCpoTepatv TWV TT po<pr)T(ii)v TTjv £a>T)v 8oKip.a£e ovv aTTo TTJS fofjs Kal T£>V epyw TOV avdpwrrov TOV XcyovTa eavTov 7rvevp.aTO(p6pov fivai.
Cp. Mt. vii. 15, 1 6.
S. 9, xiii. 2. Certain virgins, who are "holy spirits," must clothe a man with their garments, ev8vo-o)o-i TO ev8vp.a OVTCOV, in order that he may be found in the kingdom of God.
Cp. Mt. xxii. ii. Hermas, however, always writes "kingdom of God," not "kingdom of heaven."
V. 4, ii. 6 oval TO?? aKovo-ao-iv TO. prf^ara TUVTU KOI 7rapaKovo~ao-iv alpeTO)- repov TJV avTols TO /LIT) yevvrjdfjvai.
The latter half of this sentence might be taken either from Mt. xxvi. 24 or Mk xiv. 21 ; but the thought of the former half corresponds with Mt. vii. 26. The whole may therefore be placed under the head of reminiscences of that Gospel.
3. Parallelisms with St Mark.
S. 5, iii. I, 2. Ae'yor Kvpie, eyw TUVTOS TO.S 7rapa(3o\as ov ytvdxrKO) ov8e
8vvap.ai voijorai, eav p.rj /zoi f7ri\vcrrjs avTas. lidvTa o~oi 67TtXv(ra), (prjai.
See also ib. v. i. Cp. Mk iv. 34.
74 Parallelisms with the Gospels
M. 12, iv. 4. 01 Se en-i roi? xfi\(o~tv f^oi/rer roi/ Kvpiov, TI^I/ 8e
aVTWV 7T € TrOOp O)/Z (VTJV. See alSO M. 4, H. I.
For the latter part of the sentence cp. Mk vi. 52, viii. 17. The former part seems to refer to the passage in Isaiah quoted Mt. xv. 8 and Mk vii. 6.
V. 3, ix. 2, and xii. 3. dprjixveTf ev cavrols. Cp. Mk ix. 50.
4. Parallelism with St Mark and St Luke.
5. 9, xiv. 6. f)8fo>s avTovs /3aorTa£fi, on OVK €irai<rxvvovTai TO ovopa avTov (popflv.
Cp. Mk viii. 38, Lu. ix. 26.
5. Parallelisms with St Luke.
S. 5, ii. 2 etc. Comp. the dov\os there with the SoCXo? of Lu. xiv. i6f.
/#. 9. SclTTvov CTroir]<T(v 6 oiKodetnrorrjs CIVTOV. Cp. Lu. ib.
lb. 4. (TK.d'^fa) \OITTOV TOV d/j.7T€\£)va. TOVTOV, KOI torat c €(TKafj.fji€vos, KOL ftoTcivas pf) f%a>v fidxTft Kaprrbv TrXei'oi/a, &C. Cp. Lu. xiii. 8, 9.
Zahn (Hirt d. Herm. p. 461) points out a possible reminiscence of Lu. viii. 6 in the use of i*c/ia8a by Hermas S. 8, ii. 9 ; also of Acts i. 24, xv. 8, in use of Kap8ioyv<ixrrT]s, M. 4, iii. 4, and of Acts iv. 12 and ii. ii at V. 4, ii. 4, 5-
6. Parallelisms with St John.
(a) M. 3, I. 'AA^$fiai> dya7ra...ij/a TO Trvevpa, o 6 Qeos KaTtoKurtv tv rfi <rapn\ TavTTj, aXijdes (vpfdfj Trapa iracriv dvdpairois, KCU ovra>s 8o£a<rdf]- (Tfrcu 6 Kvpios 6 tv o*ot /carotKwv. ort 6 Ki'/nos dXrjdivbs tv rravrl prjfjiaTi, Kdi ov8fv Trap' atraj ^eCfior.
Cp. Jn xvii. 10, vii. 28, i Jn v. 20, ii. 27 etc. (for earlier part Jas. iv. 5).
(b) S. 5, ii. 6. (rvvf^dprja-av ro> SouXco (in the allegory) «Vl TTJ pap- Tvpia ft f papTvprjcrfv auroi 6 Sf&iroTrjf,
Cp. Jn v. 31, 32.
(c) S. 5, vi. 3- avrbs ovv Kadapi(ras rds d/iapriar TOV Xaov €O~(i£(v avrolf Tas Tpiftovs rj)f C00^' 8ovs avTo'is TOV vopov ov €\a/3f Trapa TOV iraTpbs avTov. /SX^TTfis1, <pr)(rii>, on avTOf Kvpios (O~TI TOV XaoO, (£ovcriav 7rdo~av Xa/3<i)i' irapa TOV iraTpbs avrov.
Cp. Jn xii. 49, xvii. 8, 2.
in the Shepherd of Hennas 75
(*/) S. 9, XJi. 6. T) §€ 7TV\T) 6 VIOS TOV QfOV fOTlV (IVTT) fJLlO. fl(To8oC COTt
irpbf TOV Kvpiov. ti\\<as ovv ov8f\s €i(T(\(v(r(Tai irpbs avrov fi pr) 8ia TOV vlov avrov.
See also context.
Cp. Jn xiv. 6.
(e) Ib. xvi. 4- *) (r<f)pay\s ovv TO v8a)p €<TTLV ...... KaKfivois ovv fnr)pv\0r)
fj o-(ppayls avrij, KOI f'xprjo-avTO avTT]t Iva do~ (\6axriv ds rqv fia<ri\fiav TOV 0eoi).
Cp. Jn iii. 5.
(_/") Ib. XXlv. 4. 0\OV TO O-7T(pfJ,a Vp.a)V KO.TOlKr]<T(l p.(TO. TOV VlOV TOV
v- €< yap TOV rrvevfj-aTos avrov e'Xa/Sere. Cp. Jn i. 16, i Jn iv. 13.
CHAPTER III.
JUSTIN MARTYR.
JUSTIN MARTYR is the witness who next comes before us, and he is one to whom, on account of his eminence and acquaintance with the Church in some of the chief centres of Christendom, we may naturally look for information of the greatest importance in regard to Christian faith and practice in the middle part of the second century. Among the works which are attributed to him, the First and Second Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho are universally admitted to be his. Of the remainder many are certainly spurious, and the least doubtful would add nothing material even if taken into account. Eusebius in his Chronicle appears to refer the First Apology to the third year of Antoninus Pius (A.D. 140) ; in his Church History he places the Second under Marcus Aurelius (therefore after A.D. 161), though it would seem, from the connexion in which he treats of it, near the beginning of his reign1. He supposes the martyrdom of Justin to have followed shortly. But the investigation of the subject by modern critics has gone far to establish the conclusions2 (a) that the First Apology must have been composed five or six years at least after A.D. 140, and (b} that the composi- tion of the Second Apology was not far removed in time from the First> but is to be regarded as a kind of appendix or sequel to it rather than as a separate work. The Dialogue
1 H. E. iv. xvi.
2 See esp. G. Volkmar in Theol. Jahrb. for 1855, p. 227 ff. and p. 41 iff., and Hort,/0ttr«. of Class, and Sac. Philology, in. p. 155 ff. (A.D. 1857). Their views are in important respects similar, and Hort, though later in publishing, had in the main worked out his argument before hearing of Volkmar's articles, or indeed before they were published. Cp. also Harnack, C/iron. I. p. 274 ff.
Dates of Justin's works 77
with Trypho was written after the Apology, but apparently under the same Emperor, and therefore before A.D. I6I1. It does not seem possible to assign its date more nearly, as we have not the means of fixing the time of Justin's death. There may be reason for distrusting Eusebius in the matter, who (as we have seen) places the death of Justin in the following reign, but we possess no other more trustworthy, or even equally trustworthy evidence2. The limits of time, then, within which these writings were composed are not very wide, and we need not much regret that we cannot fix their dates more exactly. They do not illustrate merely the views and feelings of the moment ; Justin was a man of formed opinions and habits of mind when he wrote ; he had been a Christian teacher for some years.
But what evidence as to the position of the Gospels do these works supply ? That this has not been found an easy question to answer is shewn by the widely different views which have been held in regard to it. The main facts in regard to Justin's accounts of, and allusions to, the teaching of Christ, and incidents of the Gospel History, are more or less familiar to every student of the history of the Canon of the New Testament. I will, however, briefly recall them. Justin never mentions any of our Gospels by the names by which we know them. He usually speaks of the records of the Life of Christ collectively as " the Memoirs of the Apostles," and, at the only place where he particularises, speaks of a fact about Simon Peter as given in "his (Peter's) Memoirs." From the records thus generally described, or from some of them, he has, it is clear, derived in the main what he relates of the Words and Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, and for the most part he agrees with our Gospels in substance, and also in greater or less degree, though hardly ever completely, in language. Sometimes parallel passages of St Matthew
1 See Dial. ch. 120, and cp. Harnack, ib. p. 281.
2 Hort arrives at A.D. 148 as the year of Justin's death, and places the First Apology in A.D. 146, the Second, "if really separate from the first," in 146 or 147, and the Dialogue with Trypho about the same time," ib. p. 191. But the part of Hort's essay which deals with the date of Justin's death is unsatisfactory. The essay was a youthful one, mostly written five years before it was published. On the whole, it is its maturity which surprises us.
78 The coiirse of the controversy
and St Luke appear to have been fused together. But he has also some matter which is not in our Gospels, and some of the forms of expression in which he differs from them occur more than once in his own writings, and even in others which there is no reason to regard as dependent upon him.
One theory of these phenomena, which for upwards of eighty years occupied a very large amount of attention — the most conspicuous effort of free criticism and the chief object of attack by orthodox scholars in connexion with this par- ticular subject1 — has now been abandoned by the great majority of students of all schools. Yet it will be worth while to notice it, because we shall thus be enabled to realise the advance that has been made, and also to define more clearly the questions remaining to be decided. It was thought most natural to assume that Justin was accustomed to use a single work, not one of our four Gospels, though of the nature of a Gospel. He might, indeed, it was allowed, have known our Gospels, or some of them. Credner — to name one of the most able and circumspect advocates of the theory — held that he must have done so. But " he used them little or not at all directly, preferring another work2."
Two passages, in which reference is made to that which is found " in the Gospel," were urged in support of this view3. It was suggested also that the plural " Memoirs of the Apostles " might describe a collection of their reminiscences. The explanatory words added in one place — "which are called Gospels4" — might well, it was said, be an interpolation ; or if Justin did use the expression and designated thereby a whole class of writings, there was still one among them on which he himself mainly relied.
Endeavours were made to identify this document with some work which, though lost, has left traces of its existence in Christian literature. T/ie Gospel accg to the Hebrews was first fixed upon, and this suggestion was accepted as sub-
1 See the sketch of the history of enquiry as to the sources of Justin's citations in Semisch, Die apostolischen Denkwiirdigkeiten d. M. Justinus, p. i6ff., or Credner, Geschichte d. N. T. /Cation, pp. 7, 8.
2 Credner, ib. p. 9. 3 Dial. chh. 10 and 100. 4 Apol. i. 66.
as to his evangelic quotations 79
stantially correct by Credner. He held, however, that the Gospel used by Justin must have been "a peculiar edition of that Gospel of many forms, the same which also elsewhere again presents itself repeatedly as the Gospel of Peter ; and which must have grown out of an older harmonistic compila- tion of the Gospel history1." It reappeared also, he thought, under the name of Tatian's Diatessaron, a work not, properly speaking, based on the four Gospels, and yet containing sufficient resemblances to them to be frequently mistaken for a harmony of them by Catholic Christians2.
It was always at best an unverified hypothesis that a Gospel once existed which would of itself alone, approxi- mately at least, have supplied Justin with all his Evangelic citations in the form in which he gives them. And investi- gation and the increase of knowledge have shewn it to be untenable. Recent discoveries have been fatal to Credner's special form of the theory. We have now a portion of the Gospel of Peter, — such the fragment found at Akhmim is almost universally believed to be. Now many scholars do indeed hold that Justin made some use of this work; and so far it may be thought that Credner is justified. This is a question to which it will be necessary to return. But whatever else is doubtful, it is certain that the work of which a portion has been recovered could not have been Justin's principal source for the Gospel history ; and that it was nothing less than this was the very point of the view which Credner maintained. Again, somewhat earlier, much fresh light was thrown upon the character and contents of Tatian's Diatessaron, all tending to shew that it must from the first and according to its essential structure have been in the main a compendium of our four Gospels. To speak generally, the information we possess as to Gospel literature, not included in the Canon, serves to shew that there was no work answering to the requirements of the theory. Further, a consideration of the aim of Justin's treatises and the conditions of his age, the interpretation of him by himself instead of by some modern standard, have gone far to shew that in the majority of instances, his divergences from our Gospels afford no good
1 Apol. 1.66. 2 Ib. p. lyff.
8o Questions that must be disctissed
ground for supposing that he did not derive his quotations from them.
There is now a strong consensus of opinion to the effect that St Matthew and St Luke were among Justin's principal sources, and that, if the signs of his use of St Mark are less clear, there is yet no sufficient reason to doubt that he reckoned it also among "the Memoirs." It is also widely allowed that he was well acquainted with the Fourth Gospel, though there are those who consider that he used it with a certain reserve and not as a work of Apostolic authority. The Evangelic matter in Justin's works which is not contained in our Gospels, and in part also his departures from them in language, have still to be accounted for. And the belief has strengthened that these are to be traced not simply to oral tradition, but to some written narrative, or narratives. Any such document, however, is almost universally regarded as a source of in- formation which he employed, not as a substitute for our Gospels, but in addition to them1.
The recognition of our Gospels by Justin, within the limits indicated by the foregoing statement, has, I believe, been adequately established". Two points, however, of great impor- tance, appear to require fuller examination: (i) the attitude of Justin to the Fourth Gospel ; (2) the character of any other source or sources which he used, and the position relatively to our Gospels which in his estimation it, or they, occupied.
1 See Additional Note I. p. 129 f.
2 The exhaustive examinations of Justin's citations are, on the one hand, those of Credner in his Beitrdge, 1832, and A. Hilgenfeld, in the earlier stage of his views on the subject, Die Evangelien Justin's, 1850, and on the other hand, from the conservative point of view, that of K. Semisch, Die apostolischen Dcnk- iviirdigkeiten d. M. Justinus, 1848. Some points, also, are fully worked out in Westcott's Canon of the New Testament^ Pt I. ch. ii. § 7. As regards the Fourth Gospel, the articles by James Drummond in the Theological Review for Oct. 1875, and April and July 1877, and Ezra Abbot, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (External Evidences, pp. 16 — 48), deserve to be specially mentioned. The position of the writers, as members of Unitarian bodies, will be allowed to be independent. The writers, whose instincts are the reverse of conservative, but whose moderate conclusions are referred to above, and given in their own words in the Additional Note I. p. 129^, have for the most part contented themselves with stating the conclusions at which they have arrived.
Just ins use of our Fourth Gospel 81
I. Justin's attitude to ttie Gospel according to St John.
As I have implied, it does not appear necessary any longer to labour the point, that Justin was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel ; yet the extent of his use of it has an important bearing on that further question, whether he included it among the Apostolic Memoirs, which I propose to consider. And even while use of this Gospel is admitted, it may be doubted whether there is commonly an adequate impression as to the amount of this use. We must, then, as a first step, review the signs of knowledge of the Fourth Gospel in Justin's works. In doing so we may also note the expres- sions which seem to suggest that he reckoned it among the Memoirs. I will afterwards deal with objections.
Justin repeatedly speaks of Christ as the Word and Son of the Father who " was made flesh " (e.g. Apol. I. 32). He says, also, " that we Christians were taught this" (ib. ch. 46, where there are points of similarity to Jn i. 3, 9; also ch. 66). When he says that we "were taught it," we must, in accordance with his whole manner of thought and speech, understand him to mean, taught it by the Apostles, or on their authority (see the last passage just referred to, ch. 66, in which, as we may also remark, he seems in his exposition of the doctrine of the Eucharist to have Jn vi. as well as the Synoptic account of the Institution in mind). In one passage (Dial. 105), after quoting Ps. xxii. 20 f., in which the phrase rrjv povoyevrj /JLOV occurs, he proceeds : " For that this one was only-begotten to the Father of all things, properly (ISlco?) born of him, his word and power, and that he afterwards became man through the Virgin, as we learnt from the Memoirs, I have before shewn." It is possible that, "as we learnt from the Memoirs," here may only refer to the clause immediately preceding it, but it is far more natural to connect it with the whole sentence.
Again, to turn to parallelisms of another kind, in Dial. 69, after quoting Isa. xxxv. I — 7, he gives a summary of the facts s. G. 6
82 Justin s iise of our Fourth Gospel
which were a fulfilment of the prophecy, and it contains three traits which forcibly remind us of St John1.
Again, in his explanation of the meaning of Christian Baptism (ApoL I. 61), as in that of the other Christian Sacrament (see above), he seems to have the teaching of the Fourth Gospel before him, and in this case much more markedly. Jn iii. 3 — 5 is to a large extent reproduced, and some words of Christ there recorded are expressly cited as His. And a little further on, after comparing Isa. i. 16 — 20, he says, " Now this doctrine with respect to this thing we learned from the apostles."
Besides these cases in which, to those who have carefully considered Justin's method and language as a whole, deriva- tion from " the Memoirs of the Apostles " will seem to be more or less clearly implied, there are not a few other instances of correspondence. The peculiarly Johannine thoughts that Christ came from the Father, that the Father sent Him, that He fulfilled the Father's Will, occur frequently in Justin. Jesus is "the Son who came from" the true God, He is -< God who came forth from above" (Apol. I. 6; Dial. 64; cp. Jn iii. 31, viii. 42, xii. 46 etc.). He is the way to the Father: "we follow the Un-begotten through his Son" (ApoL I. 14; Jn xiv. 6). " Our Lord spoke according to the will of the Father who sent him" (Dial. 140). "He never did anything save what he who made the world ...... willed that he should do and
speak" (ib. 56; see also Apol. II. 6; cp. Jn iv. 34, xiv. 10 etc.). " For this end (viz. that he should be our teacher) was Jesus Christ born" (Apol. I. 13; Jn xviii. 37). His Father gave Him the power of working miracles (Dial. 30 ; Jn v. 36). His rising from the dead "he has, having re- ceived it from his Father" (Dial. 100; Jn x. 18).
We have seen that he speaks of Christ as the " living water"; so also he describes him as "the only faultless and just light sent to men from God" (Dial. 17; Jn i. 9 etc.). The Jews in opposition to this light have sought to spread
1 (a) He uses a Johannine phrase — ^7777? tfSaroj fwiroj — to describe our Lord (Jn iv. 10, 14; vii. 37, 38); (b) TO«)J in yeverijs irripofa (Jn ix. i); (c) the charge that he was XaoTrXdpos (Jn vii. 12).
We shall see, however, that this last might have been taken from another source elsewhere used by him, and that the second may have been also.
Just ins nse of our Fourth Gospel 83
darkness (Justin, ib.\ Jn iii. 19 etc.). Other of Justin's charges against the Jews recall passages of St John. They deceive themselves, regarding themselves as " Abraham's seed accord- ing to the flesh" (Dial. 44; Jn viii. 33). So also we are reminded of another of our Lord's conflicts with the Jews, as described in St John, by more than one turn of expression in another context in Justin (Dial. 136 ; Jn v. 37, 38, 23, 24).
Again, like the Fourth Gospel, he uses the type of the Brazen Serpent. In Dial. 91, after dwelling on it, he continues "there is salvation to those who fly to him who sent into the world his crucified son," giving the same connexion of thought as in Jn iii. 14 — 17. In Apol. II. 6, there is a still longer context corresponding to portions of the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel (Jn i. i, 2, 3, 12, 13). With the latter part we may compare the application to Christ Himself in another place (Apol. I. 32) of language like that used in Jn i. 12 of believers. In this passage of the Gospel itself we find the thought that Christ became incarnate in order that we might be spiritually regenerate.
Once more, when speaking of the acknowledgment and worship of the true God and His Son and the Spirit by Christians, he says that they reverence them " in word and truth " (Apol. I. 6 ; cp. Jn iv. 23).
Other more or less striking parallelisms might be enu- merated, but those that have been given will suffice. I will add only an interesting one with the First Epistle of St Jo/in. In Dial. 123 we read: "We are both called children of God and we are so, if we keep the commandments of Christ." The former part agrees with the most approved text at f Jn iii. I ; for the latter part cp. i Jn ii. 3 etc.
But it is urged by some that Justin's mind is not really dominated by St John's teaching ; that he goes only a certain way with him, as though he maintained towards him a critical attitude ; in particular that he uses subordinationist language not in harmony with the Johannine Christology, and that he shews a love for eschatological ideas alien to the spirit of the Fourth Gospel1. Doubtless it is true that Justin had only
1 Arguments of this kind were used in Hilgenfeld's Beitrd^e, and I imagine that Jiilicher also means something of this kind when he says of Justin that John
6—2
84 Did Justin include our Fourth Gospel
partially assimilated the thoughts in St John's Gospel. But of how many preachers and writers in the Church of any age, who have unquestionably acknowledged the apostolicity and inspiration of the Fourth Gospel, this might be said ! Much the same remark might be made as to the influence of St Paul's theology in the Church from the beginning of the second century onwards. The work of apprehending the full meaning of the Johannine teaching, and of harmonising it both with earlier beliefs and with the rest of the Apostolic teaching, was indeed stupendous, and Justin belonged to a very early stage in the history of the fulfilment of this task.
The reasons, however, most commonly felt to be strongest for holding that he cannot have reckoned the Fourth Gospel among his Apostolic Memoirs are probably (i) that he no- where directly appeals to the work as St John's, even though he does refer to the Apocalypse as by him ; and (2) that he makes no regular citations from this Gospel1. In order that these points may be rightly estimated, it is necessary that attention should be paid to the scope of Justin's argument and his method of conducting it. A satisfactory explana- tion, it is now generally admitted, is found in these for the measure of vagueness which there is in the indications of his use of the Synoptics. We have to ask whether similar con- siderations do not apply with such peculiar force in the case of the Fourth Gospel, as to account for the somewhat greater obscurity resting upon his attitude to it.
No popular preacher, or platform orator, or pleader ad- dressing a jury, has ever, perhaps, grasped, more thoroughly than Justin had, the first rule of the art of persuasion, that the persons to be persuaded must be kept constantly before the mind. He strives consistently not only to express himself in a manner which the readers whom he has in view will under- stand, but to use the arguments which are likely to seem to them most convincing. This appears alike in the topics upon which he dwells, and in the authorities which he cites, his mode of citing them, and the use which he makes of them. These
"1st ihm innerlich fremd, jedoch nicht unbekannt geblieben" (p. 293). See also Engelhardt, Christenthum Justins, p. 347 ff. 1 Cp. Additional Note J., p. 130 f.
among the Apostolic Memoirs? 85
points are so important, many critics have been so slow to recognise them, and they appear to be so imperfectly ap- preciated still, that at the risk of wearying my readers I will ask them to follow me in a brief examination of Justin's two principal treatises, with special reference to the question before us,
In his First Apology he skilfully begins his appeal by contending that the charges of immorality, insubordination and atheism commonly made against the Christians are groundless, and that on the contrary their rules of conduct and their aims are innocent and commendable (chh. I — 14). To shew you, he proceeds, that I am not deceiving you, I will quote to you some of Christ's own maxims. This introduces the first set of citations which he makes ; they are massed together in chh. 15 — .17. As we might expect, they are drawn from Christ's simpler and more popular teaching, recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, and especially from the Sermon on the Mount. What sensible missionary, or controversialist, de- siring to commend Christianity by means of its ethical character to fairly educated heathen, would pursue a different course? At the end of ch. 17 he passes to the subject of another world, and is occupied with this to the end of ch. 20. He urges heathen testimonies to the belief, but incidentally (ch. 19, end) introduces two sayings of "our Master Jesus Christ." In ch. 21, he touches upon the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus, deals with heathen analogies, alludes to the doctrine of evil spirits, and again rebuts some accusations against Christians (chh. 21 — 29).
Then at ch. 30 he begins an argument from prophecy which extends to ch. 53 (inclusive). He himself and his co-religionists have, he declares, believed that Christ is the Son of God, not on the ground of mere assertions, but because of predictions made long ago which have been fulfilled. And this he is persuaded "will appear the greatest and truest proof to you also." He thereupon briefly explains who the Hebrew prophets were, and refers to the interest in their writings shewn by King Ptolemy, and then summarises the points to be proved by their aid. He proceeds to adduce a series of passages from the prophets, some of considerable
86 Review of ' Justin s argument
length, and mentions different prophets by name, while he intersperses remarks on the manner in which prophecy is to be interpreted. As regards the fulfilment of the prophecies he contents himself for the most part with quite general assertions that they have been fulfilled, adding at times, or implying, that his readers would find this to be the case, if they made enquiry. He makes but few statements as to particular events. He gives the words of the angel at the Annunciation (Apol. I. 33), but not exactly in St Luke's form. Some of those spoken according to St Matthew to Joseph are introduced, and there are other slight differences. He mentions that Christ was born at Bethlehem, in accordance with the prophecy of Micah (ch. 34). He alludes to His having remained unknown in His youth (ch. 35). And in two places he alludes to the incidents of the Passion. In the former of them (ch. 35) there are traits not found in our Gospels, which must come before us again when we are con- sidering Justin's additional source or sources; at the other (ch. 38) he seems to be condensing Mt. xxvii. 39 — 43. It is in connexion with the first of all these definite references that he makes his only distinct allusion, throughout the argument of these 24 chapters, to the Christian sources of information. " Those," he says, " taught thus, who recorded all the things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ."
The reason for the difference in his treatment of the prophets and the Christian records is evident. He believed, and probably he was not wrong in believing, that even the heathen might feel reverence for the prophecies of Hebrew seers, already venerable from antiquity. There was much in the modes of thought then prevalent in the Graeco-Roman world to favour this. If so, it was natural that he should give their words with some fulness and that they should be men- tioned by name. Appealing to the same feeling, he twice alludes to two Gentile prophets, " the Sibyl and Hystaspes " (Apol. I. 20 and 44). On the other hand, the names of humble Christian writers would carry no weight. General references to them would be most effective ; it sufficed for the most part to allude to what would be found in them, or else to give briefly the substance of what they said. Men would wish to
in his First Apology 87
learn more of their contents, and would be prepared to read them with respect, when meditation on the prophecies had done its work. Such at least seems clearly to have been the idea which governed his procedure. The motives for his silence as to the Gospels are further illustrated by his opposite action in the case of historical records to whose authority Roman readers might be expected to bow. He invites them to turn to the registers of Quirinius, "your first governor in Judaea" (ch. 34, end), and twice to the "Acts under Pontius Pilate" (chh. 35, 48).
In chh. 54—60 he corrects some heathen errors and alludes to the existence of Gnostic heresy ; in all this there is nothing to detain us. Then in ch. 61 he undertakes to give some account of Christian ordinances, and he naturally com- mences with the admission of a convert into the Church by baptism — Christian new birth. We have already seen that in speaking of this he quotes in substance the words of Christ contained in Jn iii. 3 — 5, and refers to them as learnt from the apostles.
After this account of baptism he is led (ch. 63), by an associ- ation of ideas which I need not stay to trace, to enter upon a digression concerning the ignorance of the Personal Word of God displayed by the Jews, although He spake to them under the Old Covenant. To establish this point he quotes Isa. i. 3, and then, as a parallel to it, cites part of Christ's saying at Mt. xi. 27 (= Lu. x. 22). Now these words suggest the great doctrine of the relation of the Son to the Father, and Justin does dwell upon it for a moment, and quotes words which give the gist of Our Lord's teaching at Mt. x. 40, Lu. x. 16, and also at Jn v. 24 etc. He might doubtless have quoted a great deal more to the same effect, especially from the Fourth Gospel, but it does not fall within his plan to do so. He nowhere develops the argument of Christ's witness to Himself. To us that appears to be the most convincing of all arguments for Christianity ; but it would not have been so to those for whom Justin wrote. For its effect it presupposes that the persons addressed should already have attained to a conviction of the moral sublimity of Christ's character. When Justin quotes Mt. xi. 27, it is not in order to found such an argu-
88 Review of Justin s argument
ment upon it ; but (as I have said) because the words seemed to him to contain an allusion to the ignorance of the Jews ; and on that point he again insists before leaving the passage.
At ch. 65 he resumes his account of Christian institutions. In speaking of the Eucharist he for the first time actually mentions " the Memoirs " of the Apostles (ch. 66)1 in which Christ's command to observe the rite is contained. He has of course the Synoptic Gospels principally in view, yet, as has been noted above, in his few words on the doctrine of the Eucharist there are signs of the influence of St John. Finally, in his account of other parts of Christian Worship (ch. 67), with which the treatise closes, he states that the Memoirs of the Apostles and the Prophets are read in the Christian assemblies.
The brief Second Apology, which is largely concerned with a particular case of persecution, may for our present purpose be passed over ; and the Dialogue with Tryp/w, though a much longer treatise than the First Apology, need not detain us so long, because much that has been said of that work applies here also. The main purpose of the Dialogue, written for Jews, is to develop the argument from prophecy. And if Justin had some ground for hoping that the words of Hebrew prophets might carry weight even with heathen, he certainly might feel himself justified in appealing to them when engaged in controversy with Jews. He quotes them at great length, drawing out from them the promise of a new Covenant, the non-essentialness of circumcision2, the fact that in rejecting Christ the Jews had acted in the manner which their own prophets had foretold, the Christian faith concerning the Christ as Divine, yet destined to be born into the world as a man, of a Virgin, and to suffer on the Cross and rise from the dead and to come again as Judge. Justin is able to assume somewhat more knowledge of Christian beliefs on the part of an educated Jew, than he could on that of Gentiles. Trypho has even looked a little for himself into the Christian records, or is represented as having done so. And for this reason, Justin, as he himself implies, feels somewhat more free in referring to them, and mentions them a good deal more
1 In ch. 33 the participle is used, ot a.TrofjLvr)/j.ovfi><rat>Tcs.
2 Dial. 10, and 18, beginning.
in his Dialogue with Trypho 89
frequently1. The terms also in which he alludes to their authors are on two occasions more precise. He says that they were composed by "the apostles of Christ and their com- panions " (ch. 103), which suits well with the traditional view of our Gospels. At another place he alludes to certain Memoirs as Peter's (ch. 106). This language must hereafter be considered. It will suffice here to remark that if this reference makes his silence as to the authorship of other "Memoirs" more strange, it does not do this specially in regard to St John. Justin names John, however, in connexion with the Apocalypse, and it is contended that if he had believed the Fourth Gospel to have been by him, he could not have forborne to mention the fact in respect to this work also. But the cases are wholly different. In the view of Jews and heathen a vision, even though made to a Christian, would partake of the character of inspiration. It would be natural to name the recipient of it, and indeed it is not easy to see how else it could be referred to. But that Justin did not think the mere name of John, apostle though he was, would carry weight with his Jewish hearers and readers is shewn by the manner in which he introduces it2.
His method of citing the Lord's words and of referring to the facts of the Gospel history is the same as in the Apology. There are the same signs of compression, of intermixture of passages, the same appearance of summarising. The amount, too, of the citations is much the same, and relatively to the length of the Dialogue distinctly less3. It is no more part of his plan in this than in the former work to quote largely from Christian writings. They were not authoritative for the Jews any more than for the heathen. Further, when the purposes are considered for which such quotations as he does make are introduced, it will for the most part not appear strange that
1 In the Dial, the expression "the Memoirs of the Apostles," or "the Memoirs," occurs 13 times, and "the Gospel " as a written record, or body of records, twice (ch. 10 and ch. 100). Besides this we have (ch. 88) "his apostles wrote etc."
'2 Dial. ch. 81, p. 308. Kai eTreira /cai Trap' T\\UV dvrip TIS, y &>o/xa 'Iwdvvr)*, eft ruv a7ro<rr6Xwj' roO Xpiffrov, tv d-rroKaXv^ei yevofj.tvy O.VT$ etc.
3 I speak only from general impression. I do not think, however, that this estimate would be found far wrong on actual measurement. But great precision is in this matter not important.
90 Did Justin include our Fourth Gospel
passages from the Fourth Gospel are not found amongst them. On one point only does it seem necessary to dwell. He quotes again, as in the Apology, the saying, " No man knoweth the Son etc.," substantially as in Matthew. And a little further on he alludes to the account in the same Gospel of Simon Peter's confession that Christ is the Son of God. Surely, it is said, on this topic at least of Christ's Divinity he would have quoted from the Fourth Gospel, if he had regarded it as Apostolic, and would not only have adduced these two verses from St Matthew1. So it may well seem, if we take the citations simply apart from their context as items in a list. It is otherwise when we note how Justin himself applies them. We saw that the former of them was used in the Apology to account for the blindness of the Jews. Here they are both used to enforce the complementary thought that the eyes of Christ's disciples had been opened to perceive in the Scriptures of the Old Testament the truth concerning Christ's Person, which Justin claims to have demonstrated thence, though it had not been understood before Christ came. It had been revealed to them in accordance with Christ's own saying " No man knoweth the Son save the Father and those to whom the Son may reveal (him)," and with His words to Simon Peter who also knew Him through the Father's revelation.
The Fourth Gospel would certainly have been specially serviceable for proving dogmatic positions ; but Justin does not employ any of the Gospels for such proof. With the objects he had in view, the Synoptic Gospels, and especially St Matthew, came as it were first to hand. We can well imagine, also, that Justin himself and the Christians of his age might, even while regarding the Fourth Gospel as Apostolic, be more familiar with the others2.
The fact, then, that Justin makes more limited use of St John than of the Synoptics, or rather of St Matthew and St Luke, does not warrant the inference that it seemed to him to stand on a lower level. This, it is true, is but a negative conclusion, yet it is important, because it leaves us more free to determine the position of the Fourth Gospel in
1 Engelhardt, I.e. pp. 348-9.
2 This is urged by Weiss, Introd. I. 61.
among his Apostolic Memoirs? 91
his age by other evidence, which may hereafter come before us. We may however, I believe, go further as to Justin's attitude to it on the ground of the evidence of Justin's own writings. In some passages, as we have seen, he seems clearly to imply that points of Christian Faith and traits in the representation of Gospel facts, which he must in all proba- bility have derived from the Fourth Gospel, were part of what had been learned from the Apostles through their " Memoirs." But in addition to this, — if (as is admitted by most critics at the present day) the evidence shews at least that he used this Gospel1, he can hardly have taken it for anything else than what it professes to be, a faithful record of the testimony of a personal and singularly close follower of Christ regarding the words and deeds of Christ.
II. Justin's use of a source or sources for tJte Gospel history in addition to our Gospels.
Justin introduces touches, and employs turns of expression, in his representations of the facts of the Gospel, and makes some statements, which are not to be found in our Gospels. From what source or sources did he derive these, and how did he regard, and to what extent did he use, it or them ? These are questions which evidently are of significance in connexion with the history of the reception of the Canonical Gospels themselves.
Now Justin again and again implies that the " Memoirs " (dTro/jLVTjfjLppev/jiara) of the Apostles — more fully (as we have seen) in one place "the Memoirs which were composed by them and those who followed them2" — were the great sources of information for the Gospel history. And on one occasion, when alleging the authority of these witnesses, he describes them as " those who made Memoirs (drjro^vr]^ovevffavre<;) of all the things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ3." It
1 See Additional Note I., p. 129 f. On the arguments of Dr E. A. Abbott, who goes farther than most recent critics in calling in question Justin's use of the Fourth Gospel, see Additional Note II., p. 131 f.
2 Dial. 103.
3 cos oi a.iro/u.vy/j.ovevffai'Tes TT&VTO. TO. wepl TOV ffurrjpos TI/J.UV 'Iijffou Xpiffrov tdi5a£av. Apol. I. 33.
92 Justin s additional source or sources
would be unreasonable to conclude with absolute rigour that every assertion of Justin on this subject, or even every incident mentioned by him, was contained in some work classed by him among the Apostolic Memoirs. We can conceive that in some instances forms of narration and traits which he had read in some writing other than the Memoirs, or heard frequently repeated in oral teaching, may, especially if they served to make the application of prophecy more striking, have become so completely part of the history in his mind, that where he was not at the moment thinking of the Memoirs, and possibly even sometimes where in the im- mediate context he refers to them, he may have brought in such additional points without feeling any necessity for dis- tinguishing between the evidence for them and for the general substance of what he related. Inferences of his own, too, may here and there have obtained a place, interpretation being mingled with narration. The possibility that the matter in question may sometimes have such an origin must be borne in mind; yet such an explanation will only hold to a very limited extent. Justin does not himself, like Papias, allude to tradition, but only to documents; nor does he, like Church writers of half a century later, draw an express distinction anywhere between the Four Gospels and other works which were called Gospels and which bore Apostolic names, but which were not to be ranked with the Four, though they might be entitled to a certain amount of credence. He does indeed refer to certain documents which were not Apostolic MemoiYs, and that with confidence; but they were such as did not pretend to have that character; their value was of an entirely different kind; it was that, as he believed, they contained the impartial testimony of Roman officials. The very circum- stance that he appeals to these other documents, just as he more often does to the Memoirs, to prove that prophecy had been fulfilled, tends to shew that he was sensible of the importance of having some definite authority which could be adduced for the facts. The impression is thus strengthened that generally speaking he had documents in mind, which he felt ought to carry weight for one or other of the reasons that he indicates.
Justin's additional source or sources 93
There are two passages in which Justin seems definitely to cite the Memoirs for matter not contained in our Gospels, and one in which he has been thought, under the title of Peter's Memoirs, to refer to another Gospel by name, — to none other than that Gospel of Peter of which we hear from Serapion at the end of the second century1, and from Origen at the be- ginning of the third2, and to which the fragment discovered at Akhmim in 1892 is with good reason held to belong. That fragment contains several parallelisms with Justin in points where he differs more or less from our Gospels3.
I will discuss the question of Justin's use of this work first, both because it is a subject of recent controversy, and because it affects more directly and gravely than any other which is before us the value of Justin's testimony, and of that of the Church of his day, to the Apostolic character of any docu- ments whatsoever.
i. Justin and the Gospel of Peter.
The facts for which Justin cites Peter s Memoirs — namely that Christ conferred the new name of Peter on that disciple, and also the name of Boanerges on two brothers who were sons of Zebedee, — are given in Mk iii. 16, 17 exactly as they are by Justin ; the latter of them occurs only in this one of our present Gospels, the former besides only in St John ; whereas we do not know whether they were, or were not, contained in
1 Ap. £us. H. E. vi. xii.
- In Ev. Mt. T. x. 1 7.
3 Some critics of conservative temper have supposed that Justin used the Gospel of Peter, and that he refers to it under the description mentioned above, e.g. A. C. Headlam, Guardian for Dec. 7, 1892, and Sanday, Inspiration, p. 305.
The chief discussions of the question of the dependence of Justin upon the Gospel of Peter have been : — In favour of it : Harnack, Bruchstiicke d. Evang. u. d. Apok. Petrus, 1893, p. 37 f. ; A. Lods, DEvangile et L Apocalypse de Pierre, 1893; v. Soden, Zeitschrift fiir Theologie nnd Kirche, 1893.
Against it: — Zahn, Evang. d. Petrus, 1893, p. 67; Swete, The Akhmim Fragment of the Apocryphal Gospel of Peter, 1893, pp. xxxiii.— xxxv. ; H. V. Schu- bert, Die Composition des Pseudopetrinischen Evangelien- Fragments, 1893, p. i/4f. Also the present writer in Journ. of Theol. Studies, Oct. 1900, pp. 3 — 21.
94 Jits tin and the Gospel of Peter
the Gospel of Peter. It is obvious, therefore, to suppose that Mark's Gospel is really the work referred to here by Justin, and that it is called Peter's on the ground of Mark's dependence on this Apostle for that which he relates. Many critics, however, seem to feel difficulty in accepting this ex- planation. I believe this is because they do not make allowance for the difference between our point of view and that of Justin and his age. Records of the Gospel were accepted as authoritative on the ground that they embodied the testimony of Apostles. Justin very distinctly implies this in expressions which have already been quoted, and there are many indications that this thought was prominent in the minds of men in the second century1. As generations passed the need for insisting upon the connexion of all the Gospels with Apostles was less felt. Their authority as sacred writings had come to be fully established. Moreover, men like Mark and Luke had grown in the estimation of the Church, partly owing to the very fact of their being evangelists, partly because even these men, the younger con- temporaries of the Apostles, seemed more and more to be separated from the men of all after-times.
It is certain that among the works which Justin commonly speaks of as Memoirs of the Apostles he reckoned sorne which he did not suppose to have been actually composed by them, but by disciples of theirs2. In principle he does nothing different if he attributes Mark's Gospel specifically to Peter. Moreover, it must be allowed to be in the highest degree probable that the tradition preserved by Justin's contemporary Papias — to the effect that Mark did but write down in his Gospel what he had learned from Peter — was known to Justin. It can hardly be doubted that, if he had been asked what Apostolic testimony more particularly was given in this Gospel, he would have named that of Peter. And if ever
1 Especially the phrase rd /3ij3Xfa KO.\ oi 6.tr6<TTo\oi in i Clem. xiv. ; the manner in which Papias insists on Mark's dependence upon Peter (ap. Eus. H. E. in. xxxix. 15); the treatment of the subject of the Gospels by Irenaeus (c. Haer. in. i.). The forms also frequently given to Apocryphal Gospels and their titles are evidence to the same effect. An attempt was made to win attention for them by attributing them directly to Apostles.
2 Cp. the words quoted above p. 91 from Dial. 103.
Justin and the Gospel of Peter .95
there was an occasion when it would be natural to appeal to the record as Peter's, it was this one, where a fact in that Apostle's personal history had been recalled.
Let me next urge two objections, of a kind which may be readily appreciated, and which appear to me to be very serious, to the view that by "his (Peter's) Memoirs" Justin means the so-called Gospel of Peter.
(i) Justin and the author of the Gospel of Peter present a remarkable contrast both in spirit and in details in their treatment of the subject of the Sufferings of Christ. The Gospel of Peter, describing the Crucifixion of Jesus, says that "he was silent as having no pain"; then at the end, according to it, he uttered the words " my power, my power, thou hast forsaken me"; and "when he had so said" he " was taken up " (ch. v.).
Justin is directly at issue with " Peter'"' in regard to these particulars, while he agrees with our Gospels. He relates that " being crucified, Jesus said, ' O God, O God, why didst thou forsake me1?" And he remarks that Jesus thereby shewed that " he had truly become man, susceptible of sufferings2." In another place3 he gives the last words from the Cross recorded by St Luke: — "in giving up the spirit upon the Cross he said, * Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.' "
The Docetism of "Peter" may not be very pronounced. Still the tendency, the desire to evade the " offence of the Cross," manifested in the expressions above cited, is unmis- takeable. And Justin was not one who could have failed to perceive the indications of it. He had a firm hold upon the fact that Christ really suffered, and perception of the im- portance of this truth. The words already referred to are evidence of this, and more might be adduced4. Moreover he had himself written a treatise directed against the heretics of
1 Dial. ch. 99.
2 OTL dXTjtfws ytyovev avQpuTros avTiXyirTiKos iraBuv. He uses this expression Dial. ch. 98 when commenting on Ps. xxii. i and its fulfilment. But again in the next chapter, with reference both to this word on the Cross and to His utterances in the Garden, he makes the comment 5rj\&v 5ict TOIJTUV OTL d\T)6u>s
3 Dial. 105.
4 See Dial. 100, 103.
96 Justin and the Gospel of Peter
his time who were Gnostics, and all in different ways and degrees Docetic1. He could not have thought lightly even of a leaning toward their side.
There are some, we may observe, who admit, or rather who would contend, that Justin while he knew and mentioned the Gospel of Peter did so only to a very limited extent, and who suggest that such a restricted and subordinate use of accounts of the Life of Christ other than the Four Gospels would be in accord with the feeling and practice of his own age, and even in some degree of later times2. There may be no objection of a general kind to this supposition ; but it does not seem probable in this instance when the peculiarities of the actual case are considered. For if he allowed the book to be Peter's, as it claimed to be, it should have ranked in his eyes as one of the chief authorities for the Gospel history. He would, one must think, have been very unwilling to allow this position — which could not but follow if its Petrine author- ship was admitted — to a work from the temper and expressions of which he differed in the important respect which we have just noted.
(2) If the Gospel of Peter belonged to the number of Memoirs of the Apostles from which Justin quotes, it used, according to what he tells us, to be read in the Christian assemblies3, — those of Rome (we must suppose) since he is writing there. Indeed if he ever knew of it, others probably must have known of it also. But in point of fact there is not the slightest trace that anyone at Rome had so much as heard of the work during the half century or more following the death of Justin. Irenaeus, though he had stayed in Rome, certainly some thirty years after that date and not improbably several years earlier than this, and though he writes about the Scriptures acknowledged there, shews no sign of being acquainted with it. The Muratorian fragment on the Canon says not one word about it, though it mentions works which are to be excluded from public reading as being unauthentic, and others about the public reading of which there was some diversity of opinion, and includes among these last the Apoca-
1 Apol. I. 26. 2 Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 305, 310.
3 Apol. I. 67, p. 98.
Justin and the Gospel of Peter 97
lypse of Peter, a fragment of which was recovered along with that of the Gospel of Peter. It would be strange even that the bishop of Antioch at the end of the second century should not have known it till his attention was called to it, if Justin had known it, and used it as the authentic work of the Apostle.
We ought, then, to reject the theory of Justin's dependence upon the Gospel of Peter, unless clear and strong grounds for adopting it should appear on a comparison of the two writers.
We will proceed to examine the differences from our Gospels which Justin shares with " Peter." With a single exception they are found in, or are more or less closely connected with, one passage in Justin's First Apology*. Let me here, for the reader's convenience, quote it. He is arguing that the predictions in the Old Testament in regard to the Christ were fulfilled, and he has cited words from Isaiah, " I have spread out my hands all the day unto a disobedient and gainsaying people : unto men walking in a way that is not good; they ask of me now judgment, and make bold to draw near unto God2"; and from the 22nd Psalm, "they pierced my feet and my hands, and cast a lot upon my raiment3." He then proceeds: —
" Now David, the king and prophet who spake these things, suffered none of them ; but Jesus Christ had his hands stretched out, being crucified by the Jews who gainsaid him and asserted that he was not the Christ. For indeed, as the prophet said, they dragged him along and
1 I dismiss one point on which Harnack (Ev. Petr. p. 38) lays some stress. A few chapters later than the passage of which I speak Justin writes : — /cat TTWS fj.T]vvei TT\V yey€vr)fj.tvr]v 'HpwSoi; TOV /3a<n\^ws 'lovdaiuv xai avr&v 'lovdaluv Kal IIiXaTou TOV v/JLeT^pov Trap' O.VTOIS yevo/ntvov firiTpbirov <rvi> rots CLVTOV oTpaTiwraij Kara TOV xpurroD ffvvt\ev<ru> (Apol. I. 40). (r) Even if something to this effect had a place in the writing to which Justin had referred his Roman readers, these words could afford no ground for supposing dependence on "Peter." For they closely correspond with Acts iv. 27, a book of the New Testament with which Justin has other parallels (e.g. cp. Dial. 16 with Acts vii. 52, and Apol. I. 49 with Acts xiii. 27, 48, 52). This is strangely ignored by Harnack. (2) The idea of such a owlXewts, on which Harnack lays stress, is absent from " Peter." On the contrary the whole purpose of that work is to separate between Pilate and the Jews, and to exonerate the former ; and Roman soldiers are not there mentioned in connexion with the trial, mockery, and crucifixion of Jesus, but only as witnesses of the bursting of the tomb.
2 Isa. Ixv. 2 combined with Iviii. 2, the latter not exactly as either Hebrew or LXX.
3 Ps. xxii., parts of verses 6 and 18.
S. G. 7
98 Justin and the Gospel of Peter
placed him upon a judgment-seat and said: 'Judge us.' And the words 'they pierced my hands and my feet' are an exposition of the nails which on the cross were fixed in his hands and feet. And they who crucified him, when they had done so, cast a lot for his raiment and divided it among themselves. And that these things happened ye can learn from the acts that took place under Pontius Pilate1."
i. Let us first notice generally the part here ascribed to the Jews. Jesus is said to have been crucified by them ; they are also represented as the agents in an awful piece of mockery ; and if Justin is to be understood literally it was they, too, who divided Christ's raiment by lot2. We might have supposed that he attributed the crucifixion of Jesus to the Jews only as the virtual authors of it, were it not for the other statements which he associates with it, and for the fact that the Jews are spoken of as the executioners in several other places in early Christian literature3, which seems plainly to shew that his expressing himself as he does is due to the influence of some account distinct from that of the Four Gospels4. So in the Gospel of Peter Jews only are
1 Apol. I. 35. K.o.1 6 fj.ev Aaut'5, 6 /SacriXevs KO.I TT/JO^TJTT/S, 6 eliruv ravra, ov5tv rovruv ZiraBev 'lyffovs 3£ xpiffrbs QerdOri ras %ei)>as, ffravpw6eis viro ruv 'lovdaluv dvTi\ey6vruv avri$ KO.L (paaKbvruv /JLTJ elvai avrbv -xfiffrbv. Kai yap, ws elirfv 6 s, diaffvpovres avrbv iKddiaav eiri /Scares /ecu dirov Kpivov rjjiuV. T6 5e /JLOV x«Pas Ka-<- Todas ^777770-1$ r&v tv r$ aravpy Traytvruv tv TCUJ \epal Kal rots irocrlv avrov yXwv rp>. Kai fj-era rb ffravpwffcu avrbv tfiaXov K\rjpov tiri rbv i/j-aricrfjibv avrov, xal 4/j.eplaavro eavrois ol vravpuffavres avrbv. Kai ravra 8ri ytyove SvvatrOe fj.adetv £K r&v tiri IlovTlov IliXdrow yevofj-tvuv auruv.
- Whether he really means to attribute this last act to them must remain doubtful. He says "they who crucified him cast a lot, etc.," and just above he has said that Jesus was crucified by the Jews. But possibly in using this subject "they who crucified him " he may have remembered the narrative of the Gospel. In the sentence quoted p. 97 n. he recognises that the Roman soldiers bore a part in the death of Christ, and in a passage (Dial. 99) which is in several respects parallel to Apol. i. 35 he does not specify whether the executioners were Jews or Roman soldiers.
3 In addition to those which will come before us in the course of the following discussion, I may mention a passage of the Preaching of Peter (not to be con- founded with the Gospel of Peter}, which is given by Clement of Alexandria, Strom, vi. ch. 15, p. 804; also the Syriac Version of the Apology of Aristides, Harris, Texts and Studies, I. p. 37.
4 It is true that Jn xix. 16 (iraptdwuev avrbv avrots iva ffravpudy) followed (v. 17) by iraptXafiov, or similarly the connexion in Lu. xxiii. 25, 26, might have suggested the notion that the Jews themselves carried out the Crucifixion, but this is not the impression given by the narrative taken as a whole in either of these Gospels, any more than in Mt. or Mk.
Jnstin and the Gospel of Peter 99
mentioned in connexion with the mockery and crucifixion of Jesus ; but the heinousness of their conduct is heightened by particulars many of which have no place in Justin any more than in our Gospels, and which betray gross ignorance of the actual historical relations between Herod and the rulers of Jerusalem, and of the position of both under the Roman government. After Herod and the Jews have refused to wash their hands as Pilate did, Herod gives the order that Jesus should be taken away, saying, "Do to him all that I have commanded you to do." He hands Jesus over to the Jews ; they put upon Him the purple robe and roughly pretend to do Him honour; one of them places the crown of thorns upon His head, they buffet Him, and finally carry out the sentence; and the dead body is at their disposal and they hand it over to Joseph of Arimathaea ; Herod had promised it him before the crucifixion, Pilate having passed on Joseph's request to the Jewish king1.
2. There is one trait in the accounts of the maltreatment of Jesus in Justin and "Peter" which deserves special notice. The Jews affect to regard Him as their Judge. It is necessary to observe that this proceeds from the Jews in order that the full irony of the incident may be felt. No act could more forcibly have exemplified their awful hardihood, or have suggested more tragically their future doom. It has in the past been thought by some that Justin had come to imagine it through a misunderstanding or misremembering of Jn xix. I32. But any appearance of probability which this explanation may once have had has now been destroyed through our finding it again in " Peter3." We must suppose that if one of these was not dependent upon the other both took it from a common source.
This is the most striking parallel between Justin and " Peter." But Zahn has acutely pointed out4, that if Justin had had " Peter " before him, he could hardly have omitted , which occurs in the latter, from the words addressed
1 chh. i—6.
2 First, it would seem, by Drummond, Theol. Rev. for 1877, p. 328.
3 ch. 3.
4 L.c. p. 43.
7—2
ioo Justin and the Gospel of Peter
to Jesus, or have overlooked Siicaiav (as he does) in quoting from Isaiah ; for the prophecy and the fulfilment would thus have been brought into closer agreement. There are several other differences between the two writers, which are un- favourable to the view that Justin used "Peter." Justin preserves /SrJ/uaro?, the word used for Pilate's seat both in Mt. (xxvii. 19) and Jn (xix. 3); "Peter" has another and seemingly less original phrase, icaOeBpa Kplcrews. Again in "Peter" alone the casting of the purple cloak about Christ is ingeniously and picturesquely connected with the moment of placing Him on the judgment-seat; in short the story is given in "Peter" in a more embellished form.
3. We must also note the transfixing of Christ's hands and feet with nails. As no mention is made of the nails in the descriptions of the Crucifixion in our Gospels, but only in connexion with the evidence of the Resurrection supplied to Thomas, it is not unnatural to conjecture that Justin may have had some other account in his mind in which more direct reference was made to their employment. And the proba- bility of this is increased by the fact that in another place he particularises His being "unnailed1," expressing it by the curious word cufyijXwQeis. Now " Peter " also touches upon this moment in the process of taking down the body from the Cross : — rore aTrecnraaav TOU*> r?Xou9 a-rro rwv ^eupwv rov Kvpiov2. But the language is less terse, and it would certainly have been easier to expand a^Xwtfei? into this sentence than to substitute d^>i?\o>06i9 for it. " Peter " also does not here or elsewhere mention the feet, which (as well as the hands) were important for Justin's purpose, that of pointing out the fulfilment of the prophecy in Ps. xxii.
4. There is nothing in what Justin says in the passage before us about the partition of Christ's raiment, either as to fact or form, which might not have been taken from the Synoptic Gospels. But when speaking of this incident in another place he uses the to us unfamiliar word Xa^ftov; and it is the more natural to bring his language there into con- nexion with that on the earlier occasion, because the whole line of thought there and much of the matter are the same.
1 Dial, 1 08. 2 ch. 6.
Justin and the Gospel of Peter 101
It is well known that the word \a^yu,o? is employed also in the Gospel of Peter.
For the present I would only remark that we are all of us liable to take wrong views of coincidences of this kind and their causes, both in literature and in common life, from sheer lack of information, to which, often, all that appears striking in the coincidence is due ; and further, that there is some ground for thinking that Xa^o?, though not known to us in Classical literature, may not have been altogether rare in late colloquial Greek1. If so, it would not have been strange that it should have been used more or less commonly in relating this event in the history of the Passion, or that thus, or through having met with it in some written narrative of that history, both Justin and the author of the Gospel of Peter should have been led to adopt it, without any direct de- pendence of either upon the other. It is to be added that in this instance, as before, there is, in conjunction with the simi- larity between Justin and "Peter," a divergence also, Justin keeping in substance close to the Gospels while " Peter " departs from them2.
5. One point remains to be considered, occurring a little later in Justin's First Apology than the passage which we have so far had chiefly before us, though he is still pursuing the same argument. In ch. 50 he states that after Christ was crucified "all his acquaintance departed from him and denied him." Similarly in the Dialogue he says in one place that
1 For the evidence of this in the usage of the Greek scholiasts, some of whom actually use it to explain the very word /cA??/>os, as also for the discussion of the meaning of the clause in which Cyril of Jerusalem uses the word (Cat. 13, § 26), and which may seem at first sight to look as if XaxM^s was the term that required explanation, I must refer to my article in Journal of Theo. Studies for Oct. 1900, pp. 13 — 15. With regard to the latter question I would only add that Cyril in another place employs the somewhat incorrect construction which in the art. just referred to I have supposed, in such a way that there can be no doubt about it, and in a precisely analogous case (My si. I. 8, init.). Other instances, though not quite such clear ones, might be given from his lectures.
2 Justin Dial. 97 : oi ffTavpuaavres airrbv i^piffav TO, 1/j.dria airrou eavrots, \axfJ-ov pd\\ovTes £/ca0"ros Kara TJ\V rod K\-r)pov ^Tri^oXrjv 5 ^K\^aadai ^/Je/SotfXTjTO, "Peter," ch. iv. icai T€^et/c6res TO, evdvfjLara i-fj-irpoffdev avrov die/j-epiffavTo icai \axv-bv i:f3a\ov ^TT' aurois. Of this placing the garments in front of Him, there is nothing in Justin.
102 Justin and the Gospel of Peter
" his disciples were scattered," and in another that " after he had risen from the dead... they (the Apostles) repented for having departed from him when he was crucified1." This language is approximately, but not precisely, in agreement with the Gospels, which speak of the flight of the disciples as taking place immediately after He was apprehended. The difference might not deserve attention if Justin's representa- tions did not resemble views of the conduct of the disciples given elsewhere. For the moment we are concerned only with that in the Gospel of Peter, where as usual the legendary element appears to be far ampler. " I," says Peter, of the time after Christ had been taken down from the Cross and buried, " with my fellows was in sorrow, and being wounded at heart we hid ourselves, for we were sought for as male- factors and as minded to burn the temple; and besides all this, we were fasting, and we sat mourning and weeping night and day until the sabbath2."
The result of our investigation thus far has been simply to shew that Justin did not use the Gospel of Peter. There are certain resemblances between some of his representations of the incidents of the Passion and those in that work ; but that which in him is seen as it were in germ is found there in a developed form ; he keeps always far closer to the Gospels ; and for these and other reasons it is very improbable that he can have obtained even the features in question from this work. Hence the comparison of Justin with the Gospel of Peter, instead of overcoming the strong objections urged above to the supposition that he regarded it as an authori- tative work and himself quoted from it, only adds others. On the other hand it is not probable that the author of the Gospel of Peter derived anything from Justin. It would be far more natural for the writer of such a work to seek his materials either in professed records of the Gospel history, or in oral tradition, than in treatises of the character of Justin's Apology and Dialogue.
We go on to enquire whether the source common to both writers cannot be pointed out. Three of the parallelisms
1 Dial. 53 and 106. 2 ch. 7.
Justin s references to a doc^tment by Pilate 103
between Justin and " Peter" are found, as we have seen, in a single passage of the former's First Apology1. He there expressly cites an authority for them ; it is — not " Peter's Memoirs" but — "the Acts that took place under Pontius Pilate." A fourth parallelism appears in the sequel2 not long after a second reference to the same document3. The re- maining one — the use of Xa^o? — occurs in his Dialogue, but it is in an allusion to an incident, that of the casting of lots for Christ's garments, included among those for which in the Apology the "Acts of Pilate" are quoted, while there are other points in the same context in the Dialogue which connect that passage with the other. The thesis which I am prepared to maintain is that this document, which was supposed to give Pilate's report regarding the condemnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, was used somewhat largely in " Peter," and is the source both of those of its differences from our Gospels which it has in common with Justin and of some others. This view has, I know, hitherto found little favour4, but I am convinced that sooner or later, when the evidence for it has been well considered, it must be generally accepted ; and that one effect of the discovery of the fragment of the Gospel of Peter will be acknowledged to have been, that it has given a reality to an early (supposed) Report of Pilate which it did not before possess for us.
1 ch. 35. 2 ch. 50.
3 ch. 48. He may also intend to refer his readers to the same document in ch. 38, when he writes ws /j-adeiv Svvaffde.
4 H. v. Schubert, ib. p. 175 ff., is, so far as I know, the only writer who has hitherto argued for this view. In my art. in Journ. of Theo. Studies, Oct. 1900, I only set myself to establish the negative conclusion that Justin had not used " Peter." I did not attempt to point out a common source of their parallelisms. When preparing that article I unfortunately omitted to read v. Schubert's Essay. Subsequently I got on to the track of the same explanation myself, but read his work with profit before I had 'completed my own demonstration. A. Harnack reviewed v. Schubert on the Pseudopetrine fragment in 7'heol. Lit. Zeit. for 1894, pp. 10 — 1 8. He there fences a little — that is all — with the reasons for believing that an early Pilate-document was the common source, and then turns to the question of the relation of the Petrine fragment to the Four Gospels, which he calls the "Hauptfrage." It is, however, impossible to estimate aright the significance of this latter question, apart from the consideration of the probable date of the document and the amount of recognition which it received, for which Justin's relation to it is crucial. See below, p. 121.
104 Justiris references to a document by Pilate
Eminent critics have shewn a strange reluctance to allow that Justin really knew any document which was, or professed to be, the " Acts" of Pilate1. They have suggested that when he appealed to it, he was simply " drawing his bow at a ven- ture." We may well ask, as our first point, whether this is credible. Let it be granted that he might think himself safe in assuming that Quirinius's register, to which he refers just before, must have contained evidence of the Birth of Jesus2 ; but he could not be confident that a set of details — the cruci- fixion of Jesus by the Jews, their mockery of Christ by affect- ing to regard Him as judge, their gainsaying the proofs of His Messiahship, the piercing of His hands and His feet with nails, the partition of His raiment, or the enumeration of His miracles given a little later on — would necessarily all be included in the official report of the Roman governor. And yet the whole cogency of his argument, based on predictions of the Old Testament, depended on these precise points having been recorded as having happened in the way he declared. Assuredly if he had not read them in a document which professed to be and which he accepted as being such as he described it, he would not have run the risk of the expo- sure which might follow, and would have preferred to offer some guarantee for the truth of the events more safe, even if not so convincing to his hearers as the other (on the hypo- thesis of its holding good) would be. We have been told that he would assume that any account of the Passion must contain these facts. This would indeed have been rash, seeing that the part he attributes to the Jews is not fully consistent with the Four Gospels ; that one incident he could not have derived from them, unless possibly by a misinter- pretation of St John ; and that the use of the nails again is referred to only in one, namely St John, and there quite
1 Cp. p. 106 n. It may he well for me to say at once that I do not identify it with the extant Acts of Pilate, though I believe that in the latter the document known to Justin, to the author of the Gospel of Peter, and as we shall see to Tertullian, was once more made use of.
2 Apol. I. 34. I think it probable, however, that a writing professing to give an extract from this register was in circulation. May not such a supposed extract have contained the genealogy of the Virgin Mary, which would explain Justin's allusions to her descent?
Justin s references to a document by Pilate 105
indirectly. Indeed, when once we realise, as comparison with the Gospel of Peter has already enabled us to do, and as we shall be compelled to do more fully as we proceed, that he is under the influence here of a form of narrative with distinct characteristics, the harder does it become to suppose that he had not some actual known writing in his mind.
I do not, of course, for a moment imagine that this writing was really Pilate's, and it may seem that in denying that it can have existed in Justin's fancy, I simply throw back on some unknown Christian the charge of having forged it. Even this might be more easy to understand ; for there were no doubt Christians less serious-minded, thoughtful, and scrupulous than Justin. That, however, is not what I would urge, but rather that time must be allowed for such a fiction to grow. The first suggestion might come from the applica- tions made of the incident of the Handwashing by Christian preachers. Through repetition, and in the endeavour to meet the challenges of heathen opponents, this would be insensibly amplified. Then it would seem to someone a perfectly natural and innocent thing to indite the story which he had heard. This stage, it is plain, had already been reached, when Justin could write as he does.
We pass on now to examine the other evidence which we possess as to the existence, character, and contents of an early Pilate-document ; and first that of Tertullian in his Apology. He, like Justin, refers to such a record1, but he has not simply relied on and copied his predecessor. The two Apologists, while they agree in important respects, also adduce this authority partly, for different facts, and relate what they severally do in a different manner. The object they have in view is different. Justin has to establish the fulfilment of certain predictions, and cites or alludes to words or passages of the historical account only just so far as they are necessary for this purpose. Tertullian, in an argument in which he is dealing with the attitude of successive emperors to Chris- tianity, alleges the impression that had been produced on Tiberius by the testimony of Pilate, the substance of which
1 See ch. 5 beginning, and ch. 21, "Quern solummodo...Caesari turn Tiberio . nuntiavit."
io6 A supposed document by Pilate
he gives, probably in a condensed form. Nor does he write as one would who had barely conceived or obtained the notion that such a document must exist or have existed, and who had then made up its supposed contents out of the familiar records of the four Gospels1. His opening words
1 The view that Justin and Tertullian merely imagined the existence of a record or report by Pilate has been held among others by the following: —
Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt 2, I. p. 55. "The evidence of Tertullian" (in regard to the correspondence of Pliny and Trajan) " is not indeed infallible in itself; but it has been unduly discredited. It is a mistake for instance to suppose that he quotes the extant spurious Acta Pilati as genuine. Tertullian, like his predecessor Justin M., assumes that the Roman archives contained an efficient report sent by Pontius Pilate to Tiberius. He is not referring to any definite literary work which he had read. The extant forgery was founded on these notices of the early fathers and not conversely."
A. Harnack, Chron. I. pp. 605, 607-8, 610-11; earlier by Scholten, Die aeltesten Zeugnisse betrefend die Schriften des N. T., deutsch von Manchot, pp. 1 60 — 165. R. A. Lipsius makes the supposition in regard to Justin, but holds that Tertullian did know a document purporting to be Pilate's Report to the Emperor: Pilatusacten, 2nd ed. 1886, p. 18 f.
From various causes the question has not received fair consideration. Lightfoot seems to dislike the idea of admitting that Justin and Tertullian can have been taken in by a "forgery" — though this seems to me a harsh word to apply to the fiction, if it grew in the way that I have suggested. It is also an odd way of saving their credit to impute the "forgery" (or unfounded fancy) to themselves, and to think them capable of arguing on the basis of it. On the other hand, critics of a different bent have perhaps felt no interest in maintaining the reality of the document, because it did not profess to be a "Gospel," and could not therefore be placed in any sense in competition with the Four Gospels. Not improbably also the whole subject has been prejudiced by Tischendorf's wild theory that the extant Acts of Pilate, in the oldest of its existing forms, is substantially the work which Justin and Tertullian knew, see p. 1(4 n. 3; and by the use which this injudicious apologist made of that supposed result of criticism ( Wann ivurden unsere Evan- gelien verfasst? p. 76 and pp. 82-9). It will have been observed that in Lightfoot's remarks two very different questions are mixed together: viz. whether Justin and Tertullian used the extant "Acts of Pilate," which is virtually what Tischendorf contends for, and whether they used some Pilate-document. Scholten's work, again, above referred to, was provoked by Tischendorf's W. wurd. tins. Evg. etc. and is mainly occupied with answering it.
F. C. Conybeare (Studio. Biblica, IV. p. 69 n.) replies effectively to Lightfoot, but seems to follow Tischendorf too closely in his view of the Acts of Pilate.
The chief reason given by Harnack for the view, that Tertullian merely assumed the report by Pilate and its contents, is that he does not in so many words call upon his readers to consult this document, as he does some others (Chron. I. p. 605 top and pp. 607-8). But in the first place it is not certain that he does not appeal to it, rather than (as Harnack declares) to a Roman astronomical register, when he says that the darkness at the death of Christ might be read of "in archivis vestris. " Further, he may well be thought
used by Justin and Tertullian 107
will supply admirable illustrations of all these points. The passage, at the conclusion of which he writes "all those things Pilate announced to Tiberius," begins thus : —
" Him then whom they assumed to be only man from his lowliness, they consequently regarded as a sorcerer from his power, seeing that he drove out devils from men, restored sight to the blind, cleansed the lepers, gave strength to the paralytic, finally restored the dead to life by his word, spake to the very elements, stilling the tempests and walking upon the waters."
In some way then, the wonderful works of Christ, and a charge of the Jews that they were wrought by sorcery, were, it is supposed, brought to the knowledge of Pilate. It would seem needless to say, were it not that it has been strangely overlooked, that nothing of this kind is even re- motely hinted at in the Gospels, and indeed the precise charge of sorcery is not made in any part of them ; for that of " casting out devils by Beelzebub " is clearly not identical with it, nor does that cover His miracles generally. We shall presently see that the Roman governor was probably sup- posed to have heard of Christ's miracles, and to have received this explanation of them, on His being brought before him for trial.
Now let us turn back to Justin. One of the two pro- phecies which he first deals with in the context with which we are concerned is that Christ would be confronted with a " gainsaying people " (\aov dvriXeyovra). It would be found, he declares, by those who consulted the Pilate-record, that the Jews did "gainsay" Jesus and assert that He was not the Christ1. The actual charges brought against Him, together with the evidence on which His claim to be the Messiah rested, were beside the mark as regards the interpretation of
to imply this appeal throughout. The particular point on which he is laying stress — the impression made on Tiberius — accounts for his not having more definitely cited the document in this instance. Moreover, Harnack's view is suicidal. For if Tertullian imagined so much, why had he not the prudence to imagine and to hint at a little more, viz. that through malice the report in question might possibly have been destroyed ? For certainly according to Roman habits a report from a provincial governor to the emperor would be preserved among the State records.
1 Apol. I. 35, ffravpudels virb TUV ' lovdaiwv avTi\ry(>vT(>)v avr<^ nal /J.T) tlvo.1 avrb
io8 A supposed document by Pilate
the prophecy in question, and so Justin passes these by here. But some chapters later we come to a place in which he quotes, or rather paraphrases, Isa. xxxv. 4 — 6: "the lame man shall leap as a hart, etc." He throws in, as if they were part of the prediction, the words " the blind shall recover their sight and the lepers shall be cleansed and the dead shall be raised and shall walk " ; and he adds, " now that he did these things ye can learn from the acts that took place under Pontius Pilate." Here he requires only the enumer- ation of miracles; in what connexion it had been given to Pilate and was repeated by him was immaterial. But Ter- tullian's language enables us to fit together these stray notices1. It should be observed that our fragment of the Gospel of Peter begins after the point at which the reference to the miracles of Christ was introduced.
We pass to another, though a slighter, indication that Justin was acquainted with the source which is to some extent reproduced by Tertullian. He has not occasion to mention the charge of " sorcery " at either of the places in immediate connexion with which he names the Pilate-report, but he alludes to it only a little earlier on entering upon the argument2 in which those references occur, and also in the Dialogue*.
We will notice more briefly three other points. Tertullian, like Justin where he appeals to Pilate's testimony, implies that the Jews were direct agents in carrying out the Crucifixion.
1 Justin, Apol. I. 48, Tfl irapovalq. avrov d\«rai xw^5 ws £Xa0os /ecu rpavi) yXCxTffa /jLoyiXaXuf rv(p\ol dvafiXtyovcri Kai \eirpol Kadapiffdr)<roi>Tai Kai veKpol
Tai Kai irepnra.Tr)ffov(ru>. Sri. re raura eiroLr)ffev, £K rCiv tirl Hovrlov IltXdrov O.KTWV fj.adeiv SvvavQe.
Tertullian, Apol. ch. 21, Quern igitur solummodo hominem hominem prae- sumpserant de humilitate, sequebatur uti magum aeslimarent de potestate, cum ille verbo daemonia de hominibus excuteret, caecos reluminaret, leprosos purgaret, paralyticos restringeret, mortuos denique verbo redderet vitae, elementa ipsa famularet compescens procellas et freta ingrediens ...... Ea omnia super Christo
Pilatus, et ipse jam pro sua conscientia Christianus, Caesari turn Tiberio nuntiavit.
2 Apol. I. 30. In it he undertakes to shew, in reply to an objection which might be made, that " he whom we call Christ did not, while merely a man begotten by ordinary human generation, work those miracles which we say he did by magical art (fj-ayiKT) r^xvV « Myouev dvvd/j.cu imroiriK^ai) and so gain the reputation of being the Son of God."
8 Dial. 69, Kai yap /myov tlvai avrbv irb\iJ.wv \tyeiv Kai \aow\avov.
used by J list in and Tertitllian 109
He mentions them only, and he says that " they extorted that he should be given to them for the Cross1."
Again, we have seen that in the same context Justin dwells upon the use of the nails at the Crucifixion, and we have compared another passage in which he speaks of the body being "unnailed," and employs the very unusual term fl<£??A,ft>#etV. Now Tertullian says that Christ's body was " detractum " ; it would be impossible, I imagine, to convey the notion of the detachment of the body from the Cross by withdrawing its fastenings more vividly and forcibly than by this word. His whole phrase — " detractum et sepulcro con- ditum " — corresponds remarkably with the words of Justin, ttTro TOV fjbvr)iJiaTO<$...o7r66ev /carereOrj a(f)r)\a>0el<; airo TOV a-ravpov*. This agreement is the more noteworthy, because — although a devout imagination might very naturally dwell upon the piercing of the hands and feet with the nails, both on account of its agreement with prophecy and the pain that must thus have been inflicted upon the Saviour — there was no reason for laying stress upon the process of extracting the nails.
Once more, we have had occasion to notice Justin's state- ment that the disciples of Christ " after he was crucified departed from him " and " repented after his resurrection." He does not make either of these statements expressly on the authority of the Pilate-document. But we may infer from Tertullian that they were derived thence, for in describing the bursting of the tomb the latter adds the touch in the context which we are considering, nullis apparentibtis dis- cipulis,
This comparison of Justin and Tertullian has gone far, I venture to think, towards proving that a writing, professing to contain Pilate's report, was known to and used by them both.
1 " Eum in crucem dedi sibi extorserint. "
2 See p. loo.
3 Compare also the sentences in Justin (Dial. 108) and Tertullian in which these clauses occur.
We shall presently see reason to suspect that there is another reference to the Pilate document in the same context.
no The alleged letter of Pilate
We have next to observe that a letter exists purporting to have been written by Pontius Pilate to Claudius (sic), the contents of which correspond closely with the statements of Tertullian as to Pilate's report to Tiberius1. It is given in the Acts of Peter and Paul in Greek, and in the Latin Version, and it appears also in an almost identical form appended to some MSS. of the Latin Version of the work known to us as the Acts of Pilate or the Gospel of Nicodemus, of which we must speak presently. It has been suggested with probability that the address to Claudius is connected with the fact that the Acts of Peter and Paid represent St Peter as first coming to Rome in the time of that Emperor. Pilate's letter is here called for during Peter's trial before Nero. The order is given to have it read, and then Nero says : " Tell me, Peter, were all things thus done by him (Christ) " ? And Peter replies, " Even so, O king." We may feel confident that the letter was taken from this work, to be placed at the end of those Latin MSS. of the Acts of Pilate where it now also stands, not only because Claudius is again the Emperor named, but also because the Latin Version of it here given seems evidently to be part of the Latin Version of the Acts of Peter and Paid. This last work, then, in its original Greek, is relatively the oldest authority for the letter, and in its present form it may probably be of the fifth century. Lipsius, however, has argued that in the Acts of Peter and Paul, as we now have them, an older writing of the second century has
1 J. C. Thilo, in two brochures (A.D. 1837 and 1838), published for the first time the Greek of the Acts of Peter and Paiil, taking the text chiefly from a single, though the most important, MS. at Paris. Tischendorf has also since published it, after collating some other MSS., in his Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 1851. These Acts in Latin had been printed before, but Thilo gave along with the Greek, in parallel columns, the text of a Latin MS. which he found in Wolfenbiittel. On this work see the exhaustive discussion by Lipsius in Die Apokryphen Apostol- gfschichten und Apostollegenden, Bd II. Pt i, 1887, and Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 1891; also Zahn, Kan. II. 832 f., Harnack, Chron. I. 549 f.
In an allied Syriac document, of (perhaps) the fourth century (translated by Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents, edited after his death by W. Wright, 1864, p. 35 f.) entitled Doctrine of Simon Cephas in the City of Rome, Peter alludes to Pilate's letter and adds: "What therefore Pilate saw and made known to Caesar and your honourable Senate, the same I preach and declare and my fellow- apostles," p. 38; but the letter itself is not given.
which is extant in
been used, in which he thinks Pilate's letter was included. But the antiquity of the letter does not depend on this last supposition.
Harnack, indeed, holds that the letter was constructed by someone out of Tertullian. But a comparison of the letter ' with the account of it in Tertullian renders this highly im- probable. If that is the relation between them, the man who made the excerpt, with a skill foreign to the habits of mind of his age, omitted doctrinal phrases of Tertullian's own, parenthetically introduced, which would have been altogether unsuitable in Pilate's mouth. He has also thrown the attri- bution of Christ's miracles to sorcery into the form of a charge preferred against Jesus before Pilate, which admirably explains Tertullian's references, but which they do not obviously suggest.
There is, then, good ground for thinking that this letter was taken from the document which Justin and Tertullian knew. It may have been abbreviated to some extent and otherwise altered when it was employed for a fresh purpose in the work to which, apparently, we are indebted for its preservation. And Tertullian also, on the other hand, may well have made some omissions or other modifications in giving a summary of Pilate's statements, which is probably all that he has done. Moreover there may have been more in the early Pilate-document than simply the letter to the Emperor. It fitted in exactly with the drift of Tertullian's argument that he should quote mainly or ex- clusively from the letter. But the work may have con- tained also the (supposed) official journal of the governor, or that made for him by his secretary. This is the idea of the work suggested by notices in Latin MSS. of the Acts of Pilate^, and it agrees well with the language of Justin about it.
We have felt justified on grounds of internal evidence in taking this letter in close connexion with the statements of Justin and Tertullian, as furnishing evidence of the existence and character of the document which lay before them. But we must not omit to consider the fact that for nearly two cen-
1 See below p. 113.
ii2 The Gospel of Nicodemtts
turies after Tertullian the only express reference to an official report by Pilate, having a Christian tendency, is that of Eusebius, who seems to take what he relates on the subject from Tertullian1. It has been urged with some force that if Christian Acts of Pilate were in existence from the second century onwards, it is strange that a learned writer like Origen, who mentions so many apocryphal and other writings, should have passed over this document, so important if taken to be genuine, and that Eusebius, too, should give no sign of being directly acquainted with it2. The work might, how- ever, for a time have circulated chiefly, or exclusively, among the Christians of Italy and North Africa. It should also be remembered that this writing, though it possessed a certain interest, could be of little or no practical value for the instruc- tion of Christians. They had the Gospels which had for them far higher authority, while it was, in all probability, a comparatively brief and meagre record. Nor again would it be of service for the confutation of heretics. It could be in requisition only in controversy with heathen.
It will be well, before taking into account later notices, to refer to the work known as the Acts of Pilate, and also as the Gospel of Nicodemus, which has actually come down to us. It exists in two forms in Greek, and (roughly speaking) two also in Latin, which are not completely the same as either of the Greek ones ; there are versions also in Armenian and Coptic. It was widely diffused in the Middle Ages. We must further observe that the older of the two Greek forms terminates without treating of one theme, the Descent of Christ into Hades, which is elaborated in the later Greek form and also, in two differing forms, in Latin3. There is
1 H. E. II. ii. Elsewhere he tells us — and this is of some importance — that a work professing to be Pilate's record, which contained manifest errors, had been forged and put forth by the heathen circ. A.D. 311, when persecution was being renewed under Maximinus. (See H. E. IX. v. ; also T. IX. 2, 3, and xi. 9.)
2 Harnack, Chron. I. pp. 603, 612.
3 For the texts see Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr. pp. 210 — 432. A protest must be made, however, against his mode of dividing the work, and the titles he has used. One form in Greek, and all the MSS. of both forms in Latin, contain a section on the Descent into Hades. He has separated this from the rest and called it Gospel of Nicodemus, Pt n. The older Greek form, and the portion of the later Greek form, and of all the Latin MSS. corresponding thereto, he calls
The Gospel of Nicodeuu is 113
nothing in the general framework of either of the Greek forms to indicate that the work is to be regarded as Pilate's official record. The facts are written down by Nicodemus and delivered by him to the Jewish chief priests, according to the earlier form. In the later form Nicodemus is a " Roman toparch," and simply the translator into the Latin language of a document prepared by a Jew; but still it is not implied that the document was prepared by or for Pilate, and at the end copies of the account of the Descent into Hades by those who attested it are given to the Chief Priests, to Joseph, and to Nicodemus. The titles, too, of the work in the majority of Greek MSS. represent it simply as a narrative of things concerning Jesus Christ which happened, or were done, under Pontius Pilate, or they even omit the mention of Pilate1. Near the end, however, of some of the Latin MSS., it is twice said that Pilate placed what he had learned concerning Christ " among the records of his governmental house," and the letter is appended which he wrote to Claudius (sic). As a heading also in the Latin MSS. we commonly find the statement that these deeds (gesta} of the Saviour were found by the Emperor Theodosius the Great in the official residence of Pontius Pilate at Jerusalem. Moreover, Gregory of Tours2 twice refers to the Gesta Pilati " still preserved in writing at this day amongst us." These facts suggest that the work we
the Acts of Pilate. This is entirely a notion of his own, not resting upon any MS. evidence, and serves to obscure important facts. For the older Greek form which does not contain the Descent into Hades is never, any more than the other Greek form, called the Acts of Pilate, while the Latin forms which always do contain it, have received that name.
I shall, however, for convenience of reference to Tischendorf cite the work as A. P. Parts I. and n. His nomenclature, A and B, for the two Greek forms will also be adopted. There is only one Latin form for the first and chief part. The two Latin forms for the Second Part are likewise distinguished as A and B.
Mr F. C. Conybeare in Studio, Biblica, IV. pp. 59—132, has described the Armenian Version and given translations of the two MSS. of it. It is universally agreed that Greek A is the oldest form : see Tischendorf, Ev. Apocr. Proleg. Ixxi. ; Lipsius, Pilatus-Acten, p. 4 f . ; Conybeare, ib. p. 59 f. The oldest Latin MS., the Armenian and the Coptic all agree nearly with it.
1 In a MS. of the I5th cent., however, we find the addition: a7re/> aurdj 6 HtXaros ^ire^ev 5ta iSias dvcKpopas Avyovarip Kaiffapi.
2 Hist. Franc. I. 20 and 23.
S. G. 8
ii4 The use of Acts of Pilate
are considering was identified with the Acts of Pilate first and chiefly in the West. Nor does it militate against this view that Epiphanius1 speaks of such a work ; for his calling it, as he does, by the name a/era \\i\drov may be explained by his having heard of it among those who spoke Latin. It is generally admitted that the work known to Gregory of Tours and even to Epiphanius as the Acts of Pilate was substantially the same as that which we now have, at least according to the older Greek form. But even the section concerning the Descent into Hades is copiously used by Eusebius of Alex- andria (Serm. I5)2.
On the other hand it is very improbable that even the oldest form is earlier than about the middle of the fourth century3. The only question worth discussing for our present purpose will be whether in the composition of this work an older Pilate-document has been to any extent employed, along with much other material.
It has been held by some that the heathen Acts of Pilate which Eusebius mentions4 gave rise to the composition of the Christian Acts of Pilate, so called, which were intended to supplant the heathen ones5. But if this was the object in
1 Panar. L. i.
2 The statements of Epiphanius and Gregory correspond with what we find in the work, but do not touch the section on the Descent into Hades. But this may be accidental, especially in Gregory's case, since all Latin MSS. give it. At the same time it may be noted that Gregory's language as to the account of the Ascension ("in nube susceptus evectusque in coelos") agrees better with A. P. Gk A ch. xvi. (av-f^a-yev avrbv i) vefaX-rj) than with the present Latin Version. A. P. Gk B at the corresponding point (ch. xiv.) differs still more, as it does not mention the cloud at all.
3 That this form more or less truly represented the work known to Justin and Tertullian is maintained by Tischendorf (Ev. Apocr. Ixii. — Ixv.), but the idea of the document which we derive from Justin and Tertullian does not correspond with what we here find, and it only partially contains what they give on Pilate's authority. For other objections see Scholten, Die adtesten Zeugnisse betreffend die Schriften des N.T., deutsch von Manchot, p. i6of. and Lipsius, Pilatus~Acttnl p. 21 f. and p. 33 f. Tischendorf (p. Ixv.) guards himself, indeed, by saying that the original work had imperceptibly undergone alterations and interpolations of various kinds; but even so, his description of the relation between the Acts of Pilate which we possess and the second century document represents it as far closer than it can in reality have been.
4 See above, p. 112 n. i.
5 Lipsius, ib. p. 28.
in the Gospel of Nicodemus 115
view pains would have been taken to make it evident that they were Acts of Pilate. Also, even if the circulation of heathen Acts of Pilate stimulated the production of a new work on the Christian side, those heathen Acts themselves might well have been a counter-blast to a yet older Christian fiction, and this might have been utilised in the new Christian effort as well.
Now there are many indications that this was actually the case. Although the Greek original in no way implies, either in its ordinary title or in the substance of the work, that it was written by or for Pilate, it may be observed that the things recorded belong to that part of the Gospel history of which he might be supposed to have cognisance, beginning as they do with the accusation of Jesus before him. And these limits of the narrative are exactly indicated in the usual Greek title — " the things done eVt Tlovriov IltXarou." Taken in conjunction with this, the actual identification of the work in the West with the Acts of Pilate must have considerable force. It witnesses to a strong association of ideas, which is, perhaps, all the more significant, because the form of the work did not directly suggest it. Upon the fact that Pilate's letter has been appended in some Latin MSS. I lay no stress, because the name which the work had acquired may very likely have led to this.
Further, in the work as a whole there are traces of the Pilate-legend, as we may term it. The use made of it is not the same as that made by Justin and Tertullian, who addressed their Apologies to Roman emperors and representatives of the Roman power. The purpose of the work is to set forth the accumulated testimony for Christ which the Jewish chief priests and scribes and those acting with them wilfully resisted. But Pilate appears as one among those whose words and con- duct witnessed against them1.
There are besides more or less noteworthy coincidences in detail with what appear to have been the contents of an older Pilate-document, as otherwise ascertained. We have an
1 A. P. Gk A and B ch. i, and Lat. chh. 3 and 4. Gk A and B and Lat. ch. 9. Gk A and B and Lat. chh. n, 12, etc.
8—2
n6 The use of Acts of Pilate
enumeration of the miracles of Jesus and imputation of sorcery on account of them, forming a chief part of the charge made by the Jews against Him when they bring Him to the Gover- nor1. These points have come before us in the " letter," and also more or less distinctly both in Justin and Tertullian. The very same word avTi\€j€iv is used in Justin and in the fourth century work2 and not in the Gospels. So, too, His crucifixion appears in the corresponding connexion to be attributed to the Jews3. It is a curious fact also that in one MS.4 a narrative is introduced relative to " the unnailing," the point of which Justin speaks, and to which we have traced an allusion in Tertullian.
Again, in accordance with the " letter," though not with Justin or Tertullian, Roman soldiers, specially obtained from Pilate for the purpose, watch by the grave and are witnesses of incidents connected with the Resurrection5. In agreement with Tertullian and somewhat less clearly with Justin, the
1 Gk A and Lat. ch. i. In Gk B the list is introduced in ch. 10 as part of the taunt of the Pharisees when Jesus hung upon the Cross. Allusions to the charge of sorcery also occur Gk B ch, i, Gk A and B and Lat. ch. i etc. The charge that the miracles were wrought on the Sabbath is combined therewith, which is tasteless as addressed to Pilate. The enumeration of Christ's miracles has also suggested the brilliant idea of bringing forward several persons of whom we read in the Gospels as cured ; they declare to the Governor the benefits which they have received.
2 A. P. Gk A ch. 9. Justin Apol. i. 35. A. P. Gk B ch. 9, and the "letter" in Greek do not use this word but give the sense, as do the Latin of A. P. and of the " letter." Tertullian probably alludes to this part of Pilate's report when he says " magistri primoresque Judaeorum exasperabantur, etc.," but this expression is too general for any stress to be laid upon it.
3 Lat. ch. 10, Gk B chh. 9 and 10, not, however, Gk A, which is more in harmony with the Gospels. In this passage, though not generally, it may be less original, having undergone revision.
4 Paris. Nat. 1021, marked D by Tischendorf, C by Thilo. The title in this codex runs: — inrb^v^^o. rov Kvpiov i}fj.^iv 'Irjffov xPlffrov Ka^ [iffropia ?] eis TTJV O.TTO- KadriXuffiv avrov ffvyypa<f>fiffa. irapa rou ayiov 'ludvvov rov 6eo\6yov.
8 A. P. Gk A 13, Gk B 12, Lat. 13. From Mt. xxvii. 62 — 66 and xxviii. 11, it would appear that Pilate threw upon the Jews the task of making arrangements for watching the grave, by means of their own police, or soldiers permanently placed at their command. It is not without significance that whereas in the Gospels Roman soldiers carry out the execution of Jesus, and a Jewish guard watches His grave, in the Pilate-legend the parts are inverted. While the Jews were thus made more hateful, Romans are forced to be witnesses of Christ's resur- rection.
in the Gospel of Nicodemus 117
disciples are in hiding after the Crucifixion1. In accordance with Tertullian, though not either Justin or the "letter," the Jews recover from the alarm which the darkness has caused them, when it is passed, and explain it as due to natural causes2. Yet again, as in the passage of Tertullian, Christ instructs the disciples in Galilee, and ascends to heaven in a cloud3.
We have compared the passages of Justin and of Ter- tullian in which Pilate's testimony is referred to, and the letter purporting to be from him, and lastly the work which has come down to us with the Acts of Pilate for one of its titles. The result has been to corroborate Justin's attribution to "Pilate" of three4 of the traits which he has in common with " Peter." We have also obtained some further information as to the contents of the Pilate-document; and it has now to be added that all the touches which, from the evidence supplied by Justin and otherwise, we have seen reason to believe were found there, occur in the portion of the Gospel of Peter which we possess, with the exception of two. One of these is the allegation at the trial of Christ before Pilate, that He wrought miracles by sorcery, which would have appeared in the Gospel of Peter, if at all, before the point at which our fragment com- mences ; the other is the instruction of the disciples for forty days in Galilee, and Ascension thence, which would have been mentioned after the point at which it abruptly ends.
WTe have still to consider the evidence of one other writer;
1 Gk A ch. 12, TTOLVTUV d£ d.TroKpv(3tvTuv, and Lat., "omnibus autem latentibus" ; not Gk B.
2 Tertull. ApoL i\. " Deliquium utique putaverunt, qui id quoque super Christo praedicatum non scierunt." [Cod. Fuld. adds " ratione non deprehensa negaverunt. "] A. P. Gk A ch. n. 6 Hi\dTOS...elirev ai)rots* edewpriffare TO. yevb- fj.€i>a; ol 5e \£yov<rtv 2/cXeii/as rjXiov ytyovev Kara rb «a>06s. Cf. also Gk B and Lat.
3 A. P. Gk A chh. 13 end to 16. Gk B chh. 14—16, Lat. chh. 14—16. It will be remembered that in the Gospel according to St Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, in which the instruction of the disciples after the resurrection is most dwelt upon, and the Ascension is described, nothing is said of a return to Galilee. Tertullian's expression " circumjecta nube in coelum est ereptus " ib. 23, and the descriptions of A. P. Gk A ch. 16, and of Greg, of Tours, cited p. 114 n. 2, all differ from St Luke in much the same way.
4 Namely, crucifixion by the Jews, the hiding of the disciples, the unnailing.
1 1 8 Cyril of Jerusalem and Acts of Pilate
and it bears upon that parallelism between Justin and "Peter," our grounds for referring which to the Pilate-document1 are on the whole slightest — the use of the word Xa^o9 for the casting of lots. It is introduced by Cyril of Jerusalem in the thirteenth of his Catechetical lectures. Here again in the context there are touches which may possibly have been suggested by his recollection of Pilate's report, and others which he probably derived thence2. He has been supposed to have taken them, or most of them, from the Gospel of Peter ; but that is im- probable, for the following reason. Earlier in the same course of lectures he had earnestly and strictly charged his hearers not to read Apocryphal Gospels3; it is hardly likely that he would have weakened the force of his words by presently giving them the example of employing reminiscences of an Apocryphal Gospel himself. He need not have felt any objection to making use of a writing like the supposed one of Pilate, which did not profess to be a Gospel.
The Gospel of Peter has in addition one striking coinci- dence with the Gospel of Nicodemus, besides several minor ones, to which there are no parallels in the other writers. In both Pilate protests his innocence, not only at the Trial of Jesus, but also a second time after the Crucifixion, in the latter work after the Burial, in "Peter" when those who had watched the tomb relate to the governor what they had seen. It is natural also to surmise a connexion between the section on
1 Dial. 97. The same prophecy, containing the words \o.ov AireiOoviva KO! &vTt.\f,yovTa., is quoted as in Apol. I. 35; and emphasis is also laid on the nailing.
2 Cyr. Hier. Cat. xiii. §§ 15—28. (a) § 15, IliXdros Aca0lj%ro xplvwv Ka.1 6 tv 5e£i$ TOV irarpbt Ka6ef6/ji.evos earths (Kpivero' 6 Xaos 6 Xurpw0eis UTT' afirov £K 7775 AlyvTTTOv K<tl 6.\\a.x&0f iroXXd/aj KO.T' airroC ^j36a* cupe alpe aravpuaov a.vrbv. dia ri, u'lovdatot; 8n TOI>J ri>0Xoi>s v/j,u>i> f,0fpairfv<rci>; dXX' on TO«)S
v/j.ui> TTfpnra.Tf.lv tirolrjfft, Ka.t, TO, \onrd, TUV f^fpyfffiC (^) § 25- w&vvwvTO $t 6.TroKpvfif.t>Tfs ol air6<TTO\oi. (c) § 26. diffjifpiffavro ri i/xdna, etc., /cX^pos 5£ T\V 6 X (ci) § 27. 5X771* TTJV rjfjLf.pav t£ftrf.Taffa. rds x«MJ f^v Trpds \a6v Airet8ovi>Ta
(e) § 28. (^fTr^Tafffv tv ffravpy rAs xftpa*---Kal "Tpofffirdyriffav ?;Xots.
There is also an allusion to Pilate's handwashing in § 38, which like earlier references in §§ 14 and 15 might have been taken from the Gospels; but they shew that Pilate's part was specially present to Cyril's mind.
8 Ib. Cat. 4, § 33.
The evidence that has come before us 119
the Descent into Hades in some forms of the Gospel of Nicodemus and the comparatively brief but curious passage on the same subject in the Gospel of Peter.
The coincidences to which attention has been directed naturally have not all the same importance. Some may have been accidental, or may be due to a cause distinct from the rest. Still, even those which have least force derive a certain value from comparison with the others, and in turn contribute something to the argument. Altogether they form a remark- able body of phenomena. The probability that there was a single source for all these traits in the history of the Passion and Resurrection, which differ more or less decidedly from anything in the four Gospels, is not seriously diminished by the circumstance that some even of the more striking ones are omitted in Pilate's supposed letter as we now have it, or in one or more other writers who used the document. We have already seen to some extent how these differences may be explained. We may now, further, observe that while the writer of the fourth century work, called in the West the Acts of Pilate, which was more truly a Gospel of Nicodemus, made considerable use of the second century Pilate-document, like the writer of the Gospel of Peter before him, there was nothing to constrain either of these writers to introduce any- thing from it which did not suit his own purpose. And the later writer more particularly had a great deal of other material for which he desired to find a place. Moreover he and Justin and Tertullian must all have been affected and controlled, in reproducing the source in question, by the language of the Gospels ; but this check would doubtless act upon them diversely. We can thus easily understand that owing to varieties of feeling and purpose the traces of derivation would not everywhere completely coincide.
We have remarked that all those points of resemblance to one another, and difference from the Canonical Gospels, in various writings, which we have traced to an early Pilate- document, occur in the Gospel of Peter, so far as they belong to that portion of the history which our fragment covers. It is evidently not improbable that if we possessed the whole of this work the remaining ones, also, might be found there.
120 Extent of the use of Acts of Pilate
It may, then, perhaps be suggested that the Gospel of Peter was after all the original from which others copied. It is not, however, credible that the various points in question should have been gathered out of it, dissevered from the peculiarities with which they are there associated, and presented with the comparative simplicity of form in which they appear in Justin, Tertullian and the " letter," and with the compression of the two latter ; nor would the writer of the fourth century Acts, if he directly used the Gospel of Peter, have developed the suggestions derived from thence on the whole so differently. Over and above all this it is indeed hard to believe that, if the Gospel of Peter had been the source, the alleged facts would have been made so generally to rest on the authority of Pilate, while that of the chief of the Apostles was wholly ignored.
We have confined ourselves to the consideration of agree- ments between the writings which we have examined. But it is of course possible that some features of the suggested source have been preserved in one place only. Individual touches which may be derived thence might perhaps be pointed out with more or less probability both in the Gospel of Peter and in the Gospel of Nicodemus1. I will content myself with mentioning one in Justin. Shortly after his first reference to the work connected with Pilate he again tells his readers that they " can learn " that the words of the Psalm " they spake with their lips, they wagged the head saying, Let him deliver himself," were fulfilled. For, he continues, when He was crucified they twisted their lips and wagged their heads saying, " Let him who raised the dead deliver himself2." It is natural to conjecture that this form of the taunt, which is not that of the Gospels, was taken from the authority which he had before cited.
In conclusion, it is to be observed that the evidence as to the use of the Canonical Gospels in the Gospel of Peter — a subject with which most writers on the Akhmim fragment soon after its discovery occupied themselves — is affected by
1 See v. Schubert, I.e. p. 186, for an instance of this kind on which he lays great stress.
2 Apol. I. 38-
Some results of our investigation 121
the results which have been reached in the preceding investi- gation. The dependence of "Peter" upon St John more particularly has been rendered very doubtful. We have seen strong reason for thinking that various points in " Peter," which were supposed to have been derived from the latter, were in reality taken from the Pilate-document1.
It is, however, to be added that the question of the relation of " Peter " to our Gospels has lost the greater part of its interest. Since Justin does not refer to the work, the earliest trace of its existence is Serapion's notice of it at the end of the century. It may have been composed circ. A.D. 170-80; there is no ground for assigning it an earlier date ; and however full its use of all four Gospels might be shewn to be, nothing would be established thereby which we are not otherwise sure of. Nor, on the other hand, does it matter that, as is actually the case, its use of St John, and probably also of St Mark and St Luke, are very questionable, for it has no longer any claim to be regarded as an index of the general feeling of the Church, either in Justin's or any other generation.
Further, it is not only possible but very probable that the Fourth Gospel, in which the figure of Pilate is peculiarly prominent, though it may not have been directly used by the author of the Gospel of Peter, had been utilised in the compila- tion of one of his principal sources, which had been in existence from before the time of Justin, the supposed Report of Pilate.
ii. The remaining Apocryphal matter in Justin.
We turn to other cases in which Justin's Evangelic matter has probably been derived from some definite source distinct from the Gospels. He gives, on the authority of " those who recorded all things," a version of the words of the angel at the Annunciation, in which two clauses in the address of Gabriel to Mary in St Luke are inverted, and that which
1 This cannot but be obvious on comparing the preceding pages, or the table on p. 133, with any list of parallelisms between " Peter" and St Jn, e.g. that in Dr Swete's edition of the Gospel of Peter, p. xix.
Justin and the
becomes the second of them is expanded so as to include the reason which is given to Joseph, not to Mary, according to Mt. i. 21, for the name which the child was to receive1. This might, perhaps, be traced to a failure of memory on Justin's part, were it not that the same points appear in the account of the same incident in the Protevangelium Jacobi (ch. 11), with which Justin has two or three other coincidences in different places, and also an interesting one in the present context. For whereas "James has av\\r}"fyr) e:/c \6yov avrov" Justin, — though he has e/c Trvev/jbaros, not e* \6yovy thus keeping more close to St Luke, — at the same time adds the comment : TO Trvevfia ovv icai rrjv Bvva/jiiv rr/v Trapa TOV ®eoO ovSev d\\o voijcrai Qejjus; 77 TOV \oyov. For a reason similar to that given in the case of " Peter," it is improbable that the author of this Protevangelium was dependent upon Justin. It is not likely that he picked out two or three traits from divers contexts in Justin's works. Did then Justin derive them from "James"?
The whole case is remarkably analogous to that of Justin's dependence upon "Peter." Of the Apocryphal works relating to the Gospel history which have come down to us. it has, next after the fragment of the Gospel of Peter, the best claim to be regarded as belonging in substance to the second century. There is nothing in its style and character to prevent this ; and it, or our portion of it — that portion with which alone we have to do in connexion with Justin2 — is mentioned by Origen under the title the Book of James at the place where, and for the same purpose as that for which, he
1 Apol. 1. 33-
8 Harnack makes the Ytwriai* Mapias, the document placed first, consist of chh. i — 17. (See Chron. I. pp. 600 — 602.) But 18 v. i must certainly be in- cluded in it. The change of person is at 18, 2; also 18, i is closely connected with end of ch. 17. Owing to this obvious mistake Harnack (ib. p. 602) takes a correspondence between Justin and "James" 18, i as a possible sign of the former's acquaintance with the middle portion of "James," instead of as a sign of acquaintance with the first portion.
It is not necessary for me to discuss Hilgenfeld's view (Evang. Justin1 s p. 154) which is followed by Harnack ib., in regard to the combination of different docu- ments in the Protev. Jacobi as we have it. But I would remark that, although the transition from 18, i to 2 is abrupt, the document placed first cannot have ended with ch. 1 8, i, still less (as observed above) with ch. 17, 3.
Protevangelium Jacobi 123
names the Gospel of PeteiA. The amount of parallelism with Justin is also about the same. In addition to the most con- siderable instance — that in the words used at the Annunciation (ch. 1 1) already mentioned — he speaks of Mary as being "of the tribe of David" (ch. 10, cp. references to Justin in Addl Note, p. 134(1)); further, after describing the Annunciation, he uses (ch. 12) the remarkable phrase -^apav Be \a/3ovo-a Mapia/jL a7riei irpos 'EXtcra/3er, with which we have to compare Justin Dial. IOC, iria-Tiv Be /cal %apav \a/3ov<ra Mapia 77 TrapOtvos; he brings Eve and Mary into comparison (ch. 13, as Justin does, ib.) : once more, the birth of Jesus is in a cave (Protev. ch. 18, I, as well as sequel, cp. Justin, Dial. 78).
Yet, as in the case of " Peter," marked differences occur in close conjunction with the points of similarity. The words in the message of the angel at the Annunciation, com- mented on above, are preceded in " James " by others which have no counterpart2 in Justin. Again, Eve is placed in contrast with Mary, whereas in " James " we have Joseph, in a very fanciful speech, supposing that like Eve she has fallen. In Justin it is said that because in Bethlehem itself Joseph could find no place, he took shelter3 in a cave near the village, and that so the child was born there. According to "James" the Virgin suddenly in the midst of the journey, in a desert place, exclaimed that she was about to bring forth, and Joseph found a cave and went to seek a midwife in the district of Bethlehem, which we may conjecture was not far off. Little stress can be laid on the fact that both writers speak of the Davidic descent of Mary ; moreover, from the allusions of Justin we should imagine that he has before him a genealogy not given in "James," but resembling those of Joseph in St Matthew and St Luke. Lastly the phrase xapav \aftov<ra is
1 In Ev. Mt. T. x. 17, Toi)y 5£ a5e\0oi>s 'lyffov 0curi rives efrat, e/c irapadoaeus
TOV ^Triyeypa.fJifj.ti'ov /caret Htrpov evayyeXLov , 77 TT)? /3t/3Xou 'la/ci^Sou, inot)s irpoTtpas yvvaticds, ffvv(f}Kt)Kvia^ O,VT<£ irpb TTJJ Maptas. In Protevang. Jacobi ix. 2, the words occur to which Origen may be taken to refer. Joseph after winning the Virgin Mary for his wife by the trial of the wands exclaims, " I have sons and am old, whereas she is a maiden."
2 Except the identification of the Holy Spirit with the Logos, where the dependence, if there is any, must be the other way (see p. 122).
3 The verb KaraXtifiv is used Dial. 78; cp. Kard\v/j.a, Lu. ii. 7.
124 Justin may have derived some traits
used by Justin in immediate connexion with Mary's reception of the Angel's announcement, not as in "James" with her departure to visit Elisabeth.
Again the two writers have altogether only a few features in common, and while Justin keeps on the whole close to our Gospels, the Apocryphal narrative departs widely from them. This departure is greater than in "Peter" because the Prot- evangelium professes to supply an account of events which preceded the point at which any of our Gospels began ; but on the other hand, it is not characterised like " Peter " by any doctrinal tendency markedly different from Justin's. Finally, — a last point in which the case in regard to this work resembles that of the Gospel of Peter — there is not the faintest trace that in the half century following the age of Justin, the question whether the Protevangeliiun Jacobi ought to be acknowledged as authentic caused a single moment's serious concern to the Church of Rome, or any other important Church.
My conclusion is that, as in the case of " Peter," the re- semblances are to be traced to the use of a common source, though that source can only be conjectured in the present instance. I venture to suggest that the traits now in question were derived either from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or "the Jewish unwritten tradition," which Justin's younger contemporary Hegesippus seems to have quoted somewhat freely1. Justin does not seem, like Hegesippus, to have known Hebrew, but coming as he did from Palestine he may have picked up much about the Hebraic record of the Gospel from Christians who were acquainted with the language. We can imagine, too, without assuming the existence of a Greek Version of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, that certain
1 Harnack, who is confident that Justin used the Gospel of Peter, and referred to it as one of the " Memoirs of the Apostles," acknowledges that it is very doubt- ful whether Justin was even acquainted with any portion of the Protevangflinni Jacobi, ib. p. 602, n. i. Zahn, on the other hand (Kanon, I. 485, 499, n. 3, 502, 504, 539), regards it as probable that Justin used the Protev. Jacobi, though only as Churchmen of a later time used it and other Apocryphal works. But though he holds that the Gospel of Peter might well have been treated by Justin in the same manner, he does not think it actually was. Neither of these modern writers seems to have tried to apply the same principles of criticism with consistency in the two cases.
from the Gospel according to the Hebrews 125
renderings of its expressions, as well as incidents contained in it, may in some way have obtained currency and so have come to the hand of the author of the Protevangelium Jacobi. It was this that we supposed in accounting for the occurrence, both in an epistle of Ignatius and in the Praedicatio Petri, of a saying, which is said to have been found in that Gospel1.
This view receives at least slight confirmation from the fact that, in the case of the one passage remaining to be noticed where Justin refers to the Apostolic Memoirs for an incident not in our Gospels, — that of the kindling of fire in the Jordan at Christ's baptism — there is some reason to think that there was a parallel in the Gospel according to the He- brews'1. Again, the words which he quotes as sayings of Christ, "there shall be schisms and heresies" and "many false Christs and false apostles shall arise," may be due to the same source. For the same combination of " false Christs " and " false apostles " occurs in a passage of Hegesippus on the rise of heresies, quoted by Eusebius (H. E. IV. xxii. 5), which might well have formed part of a comment on a prophecy of Christ to the effect that divisions would be caused through the appearance of deceivers of these kinds. Tertullian also in De Praescr. Haer. ch. 4 clearly has such a saying of Christ in view3.
The language of Eusebius may help us to understand the feeling with which Justin may have regarded the Gospel in use among Hebrew Christians, as well as any of their oral traditions. Of Hegesippus' work, in which, as Eusebius himself tells us, the Gospel according to the Hebrews and various Hebrew Christian traditions were cited, he declares
1 See above, p. 14.
2 Dial. 88. Epiphanius, Panar. xxx. § 13, informs us that in the Gospel which the Ebionites used, and which they called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, it was said that when Jesus came up out of the water '' forthwith a great light shone round about the place. "
3 Even if the word \f/ev3a7r6ffro\oi was in the first instance introduced from 2 Cor. xi. 13 into the saying recorded at Mt. xxiv. 24 and Mk xiii. 22, through a confusion of memory, the appearance of the saying in this form in the different places above referred to can only be accounted for by their having derived it from a common source. Perhaps, too, 2 Cor. xi. 13 should be taken as evidence that Christ's saying was known to St Paul in this form.
i26 Conclusions as to the use by Justin
that " in a very sincere composition he recorded the infallible tradition of the Apostolic preaching," and that he (Eusebius) has made considerable use of his utterances, "embodying some of the things relating to the Apostles as delivered by him1." This reliance on the Hebrew Christians, whether justified or not. was not unnatural. We shall presently see other traces of the same reverence for what was cherished among them, on the part of other Church writers and teachers, who, like Eusebius, lived when our Four Gospels unquestion- ably held a unique position throughout the greater part of the Christian Church. The Gospel according to the Hebrews seems never properly speaking to have been accounted " apocryphal," as all others besides the Four were. So then Justin, if he had derived anything from this source, might well have given it without scruple, as part of what the Apostles of the Lord had attested, along with that which was contained in those records which were read in the Churches where he himself had taught and worshipped.
There are, so far as I know, only two other instances of the introduction by Justin of Evangelic matter not in our Gospels, for which parallels can be pointed out else- where2.
(a) He cites a saying as Christ's which Clement of Alex- andria also quotes, but the reference by the latter is even more indefinite3.
(d) Justin states that Jesus while working as a carpenter made u ploughs and yokes." The Gospel of Thomas agrees as to this, but a single coincidence cannot afford a basis for any inference here4. The only Gospel of Thomas of which we hear from early writers, and of which the one we now possess may be a revision, was regarded as a distinctly Gnostic work5, and if this was its character it is not probable that it was used,
1 H. E. iv. viii. i.
2 See Additional Note on " The apocryphal matter in Justin," pp. 133-6.
3 Justin, Dial. 47; Clem. Alex. De Div. Serv. § 40.
4 Justin, Dial. 88; Evang. Thorn, ch. 13. Cp. also Evang. Infantiae Arabi- cum, ch. 38, on the carpentry of the boy Jesus.
5 Hippol. Refut. v. 7 (p. 101); Eus. H. E. iii. 25. It is also mentioned by Origen, Horn. \ in Luc., as a work without authority.
of sources other than our Gospels "127
and practically certain that it was not regarded as Apostolic, by Justin.
The result of our long enquiry is that Justin cannot be shewn to have used any Greek Gospel besides our Four. The Gospel of Peter he did not use. The parallelisms with it are due to the employment by both of a document which was not, and did not pretend to be, a Gospel, or to have Apostolic authority. Where he appears to cite " the Memoirs " for points in the Gospel history not found in our Gospels, we can unfortunately rely, in singling out the source, only on considerations of general probability. In connexion with the subject of the Birth and Infancy of Christ, he has traits found also in the Protevangelium Jacobi ; but it is not likely that he took them thence, partly because of the differ- ences between its account and his own, which are mingled with the resemblances, partly because (independently of these resemblances) we have no reason for thinking that Justin would have been acquainted with this work, or indeed that it had as yet been written. On the other hand Justin must almost necessarily have known something by report, or through extracts, though not through a regular version1, of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and this may have been the source of the features in the Gospel narrative now more particularly in question — those which he asserts, or implies, were derived from the " Memoirs " — as well as of some others not in our Gospels for which he cites no authority.
This view, though it rests on a somewhat precarious foundation, has the advantage of enabling us to treat the evidence, taken as a whole, in a self-consistent manner, and to form an intelligible conception of the history of the use of the Four Gospels in the Church. It would be strange, indeed, that any work composed in Greek and professing to be a Gospel, which was cited by Justin at Rome (who, it should be remembered, speaks more or less definitely in the name of the Church there and elsewhere), should have been so completely and rapidly and quietly extruded, that thirty years afterwards no trace remains of anyone in Rome
1 On this point see below, pp. 262-4.
i28 Result as to the history of the Canon
being acquainted with it, or of its being felt necessary to warn the unwary against regarding it as authentic. The case in regard to the Gospel according to the Hebrews is entirely different. This work never was much more than a Great Unknown to the larger part of the Greek- and-Latin-speaking Church. There was no need for the Church of Rome or other Churches of the West to decide what their attitude to it ought to be, because it did not exist in a form in which it could be read by them. Even when, at the end of the fourth century, Jerome translated it into Greek and Latin, he evidently kept his translations of it mainly for his private use.
The facts which we have ascertained also affect materially the value of the testimony of Justin and of that of the Church of his day to the authenticity of the canonical Gospels. No doubt Justin was quite as wanting in critical acumen when he accepted the Report of Pilate as genuine, as he would have been if he had regarded the Gospel of Peter or the Protev- angehum Jacobi as authentic Apostolic writings. But his importance, and that of other early writers, as witnesses in regard to the Gospels, does not turn upon their critical insight, but upon the extent to which they reveal to us a common belief in the Church in respect to certain books, which rested upon the common knowledge of a still earlier time. If a Gospel was received as Apostolic in the middle of the second century which afterwards was rightly judged not to be so, this would tend to render the soundness of the whole Church tradition about the Gospels doubtful ; whereas the fact that the appearance of a supposed Report of Pilate was too credulously welcomed does not seriously impair the reasons for trusting the tradition as to the Gospels. Again, on the other hand, as to the Hebrew Gospel, there was considerable justification for supposing that it embodied the testimony of Apostles. But even if this was an error, the mistake was made about a book which Justin knew only at second-hand, and his evidence, and that of other Greek-speaking Christians, in regard to those Gospels which had been handed down among themselves would not thereby be rendered less trustworthy1.
1 We must recur to this subject in our last chapter.
The 21 se of our Gospels by Justin 129
ADDITIONAL NOTE I. TO CHAP. III.
THE POSITION OF RECENT CRITICISM IN REGARD TO JUSTIN'S USE OF OUR GOSPELS.
The points of agreement among critics mentioned above (p. 80) are of so much importance, that it seems worth while to give somewhat full quotations from writers who cannot be suspected of any bias in favour of orthodoxy, in order to substantiate what is there asserted. The whole of what I have said is not expressed in every instance totidem verbis, but it will, I think, be allowed to be implied in the main. These passages will also serve, I believe, to justify my definition of the questions still at issue in respect to Justin's evidence.
In the case of A. Hilgenfeld, we will not only give his latest view, but trace his change of opinion — the effect, we may fairly claim, of enquiry and reflection upon the evidence. In his Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die Evangelien Justin's, 1850, his position does not differ greatly from Credner's. This is a portion of his final paragraph (p. 304) : "We must herewith conclude the enquiry in regard to Justin's Gospels, with the result that Justin used by preference the Peter-Gospel — the basal document of the Canonical Mark, — next thereto a Recension of the Matthew-Gospel; so, too, but in a very subordinate manner, Luke, and if not a special Protevangelium (that of James}, yet a special history of the Passion, the Acta Pilati. For attributing to him acquaintance with the Johannine Gospel there is not only absolutely no reason to produce, but this supposition is in the highest degree improbable, seeing that Justin throughout follows the Synoptic type alone." We pass to his Der Kanon, pub. 1863, pp. 24 — 28. "In Justin, to the two Gospels of Matthew and Mark, which alone Papias acknowledged, the Luke-Gospel is in any case to be added, and it is only his acquaintance with the John-Gospel that can still be doubted.... At the same time, however, in Justin's Gospel- citations we come across a variety of peculiar traits, which point back not merely to the Acta Pilati, which are expressly mentioned, but certainly to a non-Canonical Gospel." In the corresponding passage in his Ein- leitung, pub. 1875, PP- 66-7, he writes as follows: — "The category of Justin's Gospels, or as he himself says (Dial, 103) of 'the Memoirs which I say were composed by the Apostles and those who followed them' leads us already beyond the two Gospels of Matthew and Mark. It is open to no doubt that he also employed the Luke-Gospel. Moreover it would be difficult to disprove the employment of the John-Gospel. But
S. G. 9
130 The use of our Gospels by Justin
while Justin may already have acknowledged the quaternion of our Canonical Gospels, yet he used to a decided extent besides not merely the older form of the Acta Pilati, but a non-Canonical Gospel as well."
Next, let us take Keim, Jesus of Nazara (German, pub. 1867, Eng. trans. I. p. 186 ff.), on the Fourth Gospel. It must suffice to quote a few words from p. 196 f. "Thus far our position has been almost that of the warmest defenders of the antiquity of this Gospel. The testimony in its favour goes back as far as Justin and Barnabas, as far as the year 120 : what older better evidence have we for the Synoptics ? Let us now, however, notice a distinction. The use made of the Fourth Gospel was for a long time a more cautious, more sparing one than that made of the earlier Gospels.... Justin M. and the Clementine Homilies make a far greater use of other sources, including our Synoptics, even where John almost forces himself upon their notice..."
Thoma, Genesis d. Johannes-Evang., 1882, p. 824. "Justin knows the John-Gospel and uses it in a very penetrating but quite peculiar manner. The title of the book is never named, nor is any citation, in the proper sense of the term — which gives the words of a passage of teaching, or an event of the historical narrative — adduced. Justin does not reckon it among the ' Memoirs of the Apostles,' from which he introduces alike sayings and narratives verbally in a rich selection, and which are to him ecclesiastical and historical authorities. Rather does he employ Johannine conceptions and lines of thought — as he does also Pauline ones — almost as one employs a dogmatic writer of similar tendency and position, from whom, as one's standard, one has learnt to think and to express oneself; whereas Justin cites after the Synoptics, he reflects after John."
Again, see H. Holtzmann, Einleitung in d. N. T. 3rd ed. 1892, p. 100. After saying that Justin does not denote merely a single work by the term Memoirs, that he calls them " Gospels," that they already form a class by themselves, he proceeds : — " Nevertheless, these Gospels which are taking their place by the side of the Old Testament in public reading in Church. ..do not yet stand, in their canonically completed quaternion, over against a literature of like character, as is manifest alike from the exploitation — unprejudiced and abundant even if practised by way of memory — of a non-canonical collateral of the Synoptics, as from the extremely rare and cautious employment of the Fourth Gospel." Comp. also p. 467.
Jiilicher, Einleitung in d. N. T., 1894, p. 293. "Another question is, what books Justin reckoned among his ' Memoirs.' Matthew was certainly among them. Dial. 103, besides other passages, vouches for Mark and Luke, where along with the Apostles he carefully names their attendants as authors. John remained inwardly strange to him, not however unknown. Many, however, of his Words of Jesus depart so decidedly from the form handed down in our Gospels, that it is difficult to deny him the knowledge of at least one Gospel to us unknown."
Lastly, I will give Harnack's judgment, Chron. I. p. 673 f. "In regard to Justin's position relatively to the Fourth Gospel, certainty cannot be
The use of our Gospels by Justin 131
attained. That he was acquainted with it, is to me exceedingly probable; that he reckoned it among the airo^vr^iovtv^aTa r<av dirovroXuv and regarded it as Apostolic-Johannine cannot be proved.... However, I will not treat it as out of the question that Justin held the Fourth Gospel as Apostolic-Johannine.... So then one must leave open the possibility, yea, a certain probability, that the designation of the Fourth Gospel as the work of the Apostle was to be found already in A.D. 155—160, namely on the part of Justin."
ADDITIONAL NOTE II. TO CHAP. III.
DR E. A. ABBOTT ON JUSTIN'S RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
Among recent writers Dr E. A. Abbott (Encycl. BibL II. pp. 1832-7) goes much further than many, who rate the historical value of the Fourth Gospel far lower than he does, in casting doubt upon Justin's acquaintance with that Gospel, or in the extent to which he would limit his use of it. I think that most of the arguments which he employs on this subject, as well as those of objectors of an earlier time, have been met by me above. But it may be right to add a few words on some of the instances which he gives (pp. 1836-7) of Justin's being at variance with John, (i) "Justin's view is that (2 Apol. 6) God has no 'name' ; John's is that the Son came to declare the Father's 'name' and to keep them in that 'name.' " It is equally true that the 'name' of God is constantly spoken of in those prophetic and other books of the Old Testament whose inspiration Justin unquestionably acknowledged. Justin in a measure explains his meaning in the passage referred to. Whether his idea of revelation was fully that of St John and other writers of the New and the Old Testaments we need not here inquire. If there was a difference, it was sufficiently subtle for him not to have been conscious that there was one." (2) "According to Justin it is the Logos, or the Son, who 'begets' (Tryph. 138) 'the new race' or (ib. 63) the Church his 'daughter.'" The precise language here is certainly not Johannine, but the thought does not substantially differ from that of the Prologtte to the Fourth Gospel, especially v. 12 taken with v. 3. Moreover, for calling the Church Christ's daughter, Justin cites passages of the Old Testament. (3) " Elsewhere he allows himself to say that God has begotten from himself (Tryph. 61) a kind of Logos-power (XoyiKrjv rtva Svvafjuv)." This expression in a revered ecclesiastical writer, viewed from the standpoint of Nicene orthodoxy, has often been felt to be a difficulty, and it is not strange that it should be contrasted with the teaching of St John. But, first, there is no doubt from Justin's language in the immediate sequel in this place, and in numerous other passages, that he regarded the Logos as '-personal." Further, the strangeness of his permitting himself
9—2
132 The Gospel of Peter and a supposed
to use the expression AoyiK^v nva 8vvap.iv disappears if we consider the context. He is directly addressing Trypho and his companions, and is stating a proposition in a general form which they will find it hard to gainsay, respecting indications of the doctrine of the Divine Word in the Scriptures which they acknowledged. As he develops his argument he becomes more definite. (4) "The multiplicity of names given to the Logos (Tryph. 56, 61, 100, etc.) — Son, Wisdom, Angel, Day, East, Sword, etc. — suggests Philo's 'many named' Logos rather than that of John." It suggests even more the desire to find the doctrine in, and to prove it by, the Old Testament, as (e.g.) Dial. 61 shews ; though possibly some acquaintance with the teaching of Philo may have assisted him in interpreting titles in the Old Testament thus. There was nothing inconsistent with St John in doing so, and later theolo- gians who undoubtedly received that Gospel have done the same. (5) "When Justin quotes Dan. vii. 13, to lay stress on the 'as' in 'as Son of Man' and tells us that Christ was only {Tryph. 76) <t>mvofjLfvov KCU yevofifvov «v$pa>7roi>, the word <f)aiv6/j.€vov seems anti-Johannine, and bordering on Docetism." The word "only" is Dr Abbott's. There is one point in which Christ differed from other men, on which it is Justin's purpose to lay stress. It is, as the words immediately following shew, that He was not born of a human father. Justin sees a reference to this in the oW of Daniel, the force of which he brings out by <f)aiv6/j.€vov. But he proceeds at once to guard against any misapplication of this word by adding nal yevopevov. No one could imagine a tendency to Docetism in Justin, on the ground of a single sentence such as this, except by ignoring his emphatic declarations in other places (see above, p. 95, for some references). I have passed over two or three of Dr Abbott's points in which I should allow that Justin was not fully in harmony with St John. I should apply to these the remarks made on p. 83 f.
ADDITIONAL NOTE III. TO CHAP. III.
PARALLELISMS BETWEEN THE GOSPEL OF PETER AND OTHER CHRISTIAN WRITINGS, WHICH MAY BE TRACED TO THE USE IN COMMON OF A SUPPOSED REPORT BY, OR OFFICIAL RECORD MADE FOR, PILATE.
I will here gather together in a note the parallelisms in "Peter" with the points in Justin and Tertullian which were, according to the state- ments of these writers themselves, or which would seem probably to have been, taken from a Pilate-record, as also those with "the Letter," and
Report by, or Record made for, Pilate 1 33
with the fourth century, or later, Acts. In this note "the Letter" and A. P. have the meanings already explained, pp. 1 10 and 113, n.
(a) "Peter" has — with Justin, Tertullian, "the Letter," and A. P. — the crucifixion of Jesus by the Jews. " Peter," chh. 3 and 4 ; Justin, Apol. I. 35 ; A. P. Lat. ch. 10, Gk B chh. 9 and 10.
(b) As in Justin, the Jews drag Jesus to a seat of judgment, place Him thereon, and bid Him judge them. "Peter," ch. 3 ; Justin, Apol. I- 35-
(c) As in Tertullian and A. P., supported by Cyril, and to some extent by Justin, the hiding of the disciples. " Peter," ch. 7 ; A. P. Gk A and Lat. ch. 12; Cyril, Cat. I. xiii. 25; Justin, Apol. I. 50, etc.
(d) Possibly, also, as in Tertullian and A. P., the change of attitude in regard to the darkness after it was past. " Peter," ch. 6 ; A. P. Gk A and B and Lat. ch. II.
(e) As in Justin and Tertullian the drawing of the nails. "Peter," ch. 6; Justin, Apol. \. 35, compared with Dial. 108. Cp. also Cyril, ib. 28, and title of A. P. in Paris Nat. 1021 (tls rffv diroKadf)\(i><Tiv avrov).
(/) Probably the use of the phrase \axpbv /3dXXeu/ is also due to the Pilate-document. " Peter," ch. 4; Justin, Apol. I. 35, compared with Dial. 97 ; Cyril, Cat. xiii. 26.
(g) As in "the Letter" and A. P. Roman soldiers are granted by Pilate for the express purpose of watching the grave. " Peter," ch. 8 (a centurion is sent as well as soldiers); A. P. Gk A, ch. 13, Gk. B, ch. 12, Lat. ch. 13. In "the Letter," and A. P. Gk A and Lat., it is simply "soldiers"; in Gk B "500 soldiers."
(h) As in A. P., Pilate protests his innocence twice. For the second time see " Peter," ch. 10; A. P. Gk A and Lat. ch. 12.
(/) There are also one or two lesser coincidences with A. P.: the prominence of Joseph of Arimathaea in both writings, the mention in A. P. Gk A and Lat. ch. 16 of a "Rabbi Levi" who repeats Rabbi Simeon's testimony that he had seen Jesus after He rose, and the mention of " Levi the son of Alphaeus " in company with Simon Peter and Andrew just where our fragment of Peter breaks off.
(/) As in A. P., Gk B and Lat. 17 ff., the Descent into Hades, "Peter," ch. 9.
134 The Apocryphal matter in Justin
ADDITIONAL NOTE IV. TO CHAP. III.
THE APOCRYPHAL MATTER IN JUSTIN.
The reader may obtain a better notion of the proportion of the apocryphal to the whole of the Gospel matter in Justin from the Con- spectus in Dr Sanday's Gospels in the Second Century, pp. 91-8, than anywhere else. But that work is unfortunately out of print. Semisch, Apost. Denkwiirdigkeiten d. M. Justinus, may also be consulted ; or Justin's "Gospel Notices and Citations," as put together in Hilgenfeld's Evangelien Justin's, pp. 100 — 127. I have used this last collection more particularly in making the following table.
It is not easy to draw a line with precision between variations which may confidently be regarded as due to the paraphrasing of our Gospels and those which should be taken as signs of the use of another work. So far as I can trust my own judgment, I have erred rather on the side of inclusion than of exclusion, with the intention of securing the con- sideration of all passages that really require it.
1. Several references (ApoL I. 32, Dial. 23, 43, 100) to the genealogical descent of the Virgin Mary, mentioning not only David, but Abraham, Jacob, Judah, Jesse, as her ancestors, as though he had before him a genealogy of Mary, like that of Joseph in our first and third Gospels. It is, however, possible that he mistook the genealogy in one of these Gospels for a genealogy of Mary as many readers of the Gospels in later times have done, in spite of the express words of both Evangelists.
2. ApoL I. 33. The words of the Annunciation as given by him are expanded through the addition of the words "for he shall save his people from their sins," spoken by the Angel to Joseph, according to Mt. i. 21. There are one or two other slight differences in order from Lu. i. 31 — 35. "It is lawful," he adds, "to think of the Spirit and the power from God (which overshadowed the Virgin) only as the Word." Cp. Protev. Jacobi, u.
3. Dial. 100. The Virgin, "having received faith and joy," irioriv fie Km x<*pav Xa#oi)0-a, replied, etc. Cp. Protev. Jacobi, 12.
4. Dial. 78. Christ born in a cave. In ch. 70 Justin quotes Isa. xxxiii. 13—19, including the words, "he shall dwell in a lofty cave of a strong rock," but he does not directly apply these words in the course of his argument. Cp. Protev. Jacobi, 18; Evang. Infantiae, 2. Origen, contra Cels. i. 51, says that the cave was shewn in his day.
The Apocryphal matter in Justin 135
5. The Magi "from Arabia"; so he writes habitually. Dial. 77 and 78 (3 times). 88, 102, 103, 106. In Dial. 77, in immediate connexion with the gifts of Magi "from Arabia," he quotes Isa. viii. 4, in the form, " Before the child knows how to call 'father' or 'mother,' he shall receive the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria in the presence of the king of the Assyrians." Earlier, however, in the treatise (ch. 34) he quotes Ps. Ixxii. (LXX. Ixxi.) in extenso, and refers to it repeatedly.
6. Dial. 88. While working as a carpenter Jesus made "ploughs and yokes." Cp. Evang. Thomae, 1 1 ; Evang. Infantiae 38.
7. Dial. 49, 51, 88. The same word, "sitting (Ka0e£o^fi/o?)," is three times used of John the Baptist on the banks of the Jordan. The posture of "sitting" may, however, have seemed to Justin so natural for a teacher that he would, of his own mind, introduce it without scruple into his description in order to impart vividness to the picture of the scene.
8. Dial. 88. A fire was kindled on the Jordan when Jesus went down to the water. Cp. Praedicatio Fault ap. Pseudo-Cyprian, De Bap- tismo Haeret., Cum baptizaretur^ ignem super aquam esse visumj and Evang. Ebionitarum ap. Epiphan. Panar. XXX. § 13, o>s avfjXdtv arro TOV t»8fiToy, r]voiyrj(rav 01 ovpavoi...Kal cvdvs TreptfXa/iX/x'f TOI' TOTTOV (frws /itya.
9. Dial. 88 and 103. The Voice from heaven at Christ's baptism is given in the form of Ps. ii. 7, " Thou art my son, I this day have begotten thee." This is the reading of Cod. Bezae at Lu. iii. 22. It seems to have been more or less widely spread in the West: for evidence see Tischendorf's Gk Test. ib.
10. Ap. I. 6l. 'A.vay€vvacr6ai is used in place of yfvva&dai avwdev in quotation of our Lord's words regarding the new birth of baptism. Cp. Clem. Horn. vii. 8 ; xi. 26. This, again, is probably nothing more than an equivalent phrase which was introduced into some texts.
11. Dial. 47. " Our Saviour Jesus Christ said * In whatsoever (sur- roundings) I find you, in these will I judge you' ": — eV of? av vpas <ara- Xd/3o> fv TOVTOIS (cat <piva>. Cp. Clem. Alex. De Div. Serv. § 40.
12. Dial. 76. Addition of <r.<o\orr€v8pcov to the 'serpents and scor- pions' of saying contained in Lu. x. 19.
13. Apol. I. 32. The foal for which Jesus sent His disciples, that He might ride into Jerusalem, was found "bound to a vine." He quotes Gen. xlix. ii.
14. Dial. 1 1 6. Jesus "promised to clothe us with garments prepared for us, if we would keep his commandments, and to provide for us an eternal kingdom."
The Apocryphal matter in Justin
15. Dial. 35. In a prophecy of the coming tribulation "schisms and heresies" are foretold. Cp. I Cor. xi. 19, Stl pcv KOI alpeo-fis fi> vp.l But see no. 16.
1 6. Ib. "False apostles (^uSaTrdaroXoi)" joined to For word \^fv8a7rooroXoi cp. 2 Cor. xi. 13. See, however, Tert. De Praescr. Haer. 4, and Hegesippus, ap. Eus. H. E. IV. xxii. 5. At Dial. 82 Justin has \lffv8orr po(f>t)Tai KOI ^fvSoxpto-roi like Mt. xxiv. 24.
17. Dial. 51. Christ foretold "that he must suffer many things from the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified and rise the third day, and that he would appear again in Jerusalem and would then again drink and eat with his disciples, and that in the time intervening before his appearing there would come priests and false prophets in his name."
In view of Justin's Millenarianism (Dial. 80, 81), and that of other eminent Christians of the second century, it is most natural to connect this language, where it goes beyond the Gospels, with the same circle of traditions as that from which Irenaeus drew, Adv. Haer. V. xxxiii. 3.
1 8. Apol. I. 35, 48; Dial. 69; cp. also Apol. I. 30. They speak against Him, charging Him with sorcery on account of His miracles (probably when brought before Pilate). Cp. Ten. Apol. 21 ; A. P. Gk A, ch. i, etc.
19. Apol. I. 35. The Jews as soon as He is condemned mock Him, dragging Him to and placing Him upon the Judgment-seat and bidding Him judge them; they (it would seem) carry out the sentence of execu- tion. Cp. Peter, chh. 3 and 4 ; and for the active participation of the Jews, cp. Tertullian, and "the Letter," and A. P. : see above, p. 133 (a).
20. Apol. I. 35 ; Dial. 97. His hands and His feet are pierced with nails, in accordance with Ps. xxii. (xxi.) 16 ; and He is unnailed (Dial. 108). Cp. Tertullian, Gospel of Peter, etc. See above, p. 133 (<?).
21. Dial. 97. The word Xa^/xov is used in connexion with the casting of lots for Christ's garments. See above, p. 133 (/).
22. Apol. I. 38. The taunt of the Pharisees when Jesus is hanging on the Cross is given in the form, "let him that raised the dead deliver himself." In another passage Justin has, " He called himself the Son of God, let him come down and walk about (*cara/3ar 7rf/n7rar€iYa>) ; let God save him"; Dial. 101. But the differences from the Gospels here may be due simply to paraphrasing.
23. Apol. I. 50. "After he was crucified all his acquaintance de- parted from him and denied him"; or, Dial. 53, "His disciples were scattered." See above, p. 133 (c).
24. Dial. 1 08. The Jews appointed and sent chosen men into all the world to proclaim that the disciples of Jesus had stolen His body from the tomb and then declared that He had risen from the dead.
CHAPTER IV.
THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE APPEARANCE OF THE WRITINGS OF JUSTIN MARTYR AND OF THE TREATISE AGAINST HERESIES OF IRENAEUS.
THE period considered in this chapter will be roughly speaking that between A.D. 150 and 185. The writings and fragments which we must here review, in order to gather from them any items of information that we can in regard to our special subject of enquiry, may with probability, and in most cases with certainty, be regarded as the literary remains of these years.
In Justin Martyr we have had a witness for the faith and practice of the Church of Rome. He professes so distinctly and repeatedly to describe the beliefs, laws of conduct, and customs of Christians generally, that we may regard his own position in respect to the Gospels as illustrative of the faith and practice of those Christians among whom he was living at the time when he wrote.
From Rome, then, we will now turn to the province of Asia, in the capital of which Justin had himself stayed at an earlier time of his life. In Asia and the surrounding districts Christianity took hold and spread in the Apostolic Age itself and the times immediately following, in a manner unequalled anywhere else. But for a considerable period there would seem to have been in this portion of the Church scarcely any literary activity. We hear, indeed, of Polycarp's letters to neighbouring Churches and to individual brethren1, though one only, the short one to the Philippians, seems to have
1 Irenaeus ap. Eus. H. E. v. xx. 8.
138 Literary products of the Church of Asia
survived beyond the end of the second century. But besides compositions of this very simple kind, we know only of one Christian writing produced in this region before the middle of the second century, or, indeed, for some years after that date> viz. the Expositions of Dominical Oracles by Papias. The reason for this fact is to be found in part, no doubt, in the absence of individuals of decided literary bent and sufficient education ; but in part, also, it may be due to the happy cir- cumstances of the Church in this region. Some pressing need appears generally to have been required at first to call forth literary effort among the early Christians, as it certainly in the main directed it. Thus, for example, Quadratus and Aristides addressed " apologies " to the reigning emperor, to deprecate persecution ; Agrippa Castor wrote a treatise to combat a Gnostic system, that of Basilides ; Justin Martyr produced works of both kinds. But although the Church in the province of Asia was not left undisturbed by novel doctrines, none of the great Gnostic teachers arose here, or chose any of its cities as a place for promulgating his views. Here, too, for a long time persecution seems to have been to a considerable extent, though not wholly, restrained by authority1. The first literary relic from this portion of the Church, which we come to in the period now under review, is the touching letter of the Smyrnaeans regarding the martyrdom of Polycarp> during an outbreak of popular hostility to the Christians, circ. AD. 155 *. A few years later Asia had among her bishops two writers of considerable eminence, Melito, bishop of Sardis, and Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis. They, too, both wrote " apologies," as well as treatises dealing with the doctrinal questions of their day.
The fragments of Melito and Apollinaris.
The " apologies " of Melito and Apollinaris were addressed to M. Aurelius after the death of his brother L. Verus, and probably before his son Commodus was associated with him
1 See especially the language of Melito, ap. Eus. H. £. IV. xxvi. 5.
2 On the signs of acquaintance with the Gospels in this Letter see Lightfoot, Essays on Slip. Rel. pp. 220 — 2*3.
\ents of Melito 139
in the government, that is to say, at some time between 169 and 1 76-7 1. Nor can Melito have lived long after the latter of these years ; for Polycrates, writing in A.I). 190, speaks of him as one of the former worthies of the Church of Asia2. An extract in Eusebius, from one other work by Melito on the Passover, mentions the proconsulship of Servilius Paulus as the time of its composition. Servilius must be a mistake for Sergius. The proconsulship of Sergius Paulus may, it would seem, have fallen either in the year 166-7, or m a vear preceding i623. Apollinaris is not named by Polycrates4; but Serapion, who was bishop of Antioch circ. A.D. 190 — 211, mentions him with reverence as a former bishop of Hierapolis5. The fragments of Melito preserved by Eusebius (H. E. IV. xxvi.) are not of a kind in which references to the Gospels, or parallels of thought and expression with them, could be expected. In the last of them, however, which is taken from the introduction to his Excerpts from the Prophets and which contains a list of the books of the OH Testament — about the true Canon of which Melito had been at great pains to satisfy himself, — there occur the noteworthy phrases, " the old books,"
1 Eus. H. E. IV. xxvi. i, and xxvii. ; on which compare Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. Rel. p. 223; Harnack, Chron. I. p. 358; Salmon, Diet, of Christ. Bio. in. 894 b.
In the third of Eusebius's extracts from Melito's Apology (ib. xxvi. 7), the words /J.CTO. roO 7rai56s may conceivably imply that Commodus had been made joint emperor. This is pointed out by Salmon, who is inclined to place the two apolo- gies about A.D. 177, when severe persecution seems to have been beginning to break out in many quarters. On the other hand Lightfoot assigns A.D. 170 as the date for that of Melito in accordance with "ancient authorities." Lightfoot understands Eusebius to assert that Melito's Apology was his latest work ; but tirl Traffi need not necessarily mean this, and it may also be doubted whether Eusebius had the means of determining the date of all Melito's treatises.
2 Eus. H. E. v. xxiv. 5.
3 So Harnack, ib. p. 359 f., following Schmid, who corrects Waddington. The last-named gave 164-6 as the probable date of Sergius Paulus's proconsulship.
4 On this see below, p. 185.
5 Ap. Eus. H. E. v. xix. ^. There does not appear to be any good reason to doubt that the place was Hierapolis on the Lycus. Dr Selwyn (Christian Pro- phets, p. 32 f.) maintains that it was Hieropolis on the Glaucus; but this is part of his theory that Apollinaris was the writer against Montanism quoted by Eusebius, H. E. v. xvi. xvii. He does not seem to me to be successful in his attempt to prove this, and if not, all reason for regarding Apollinaris as Bishop of Hieropolis (sometimes called Hierapolis) on the Glaucus, rather than of Hierapolis on the Lycus, disappears.
140 The fragments of Melito
"the books of the Old Covenant," which he could hardly have used if the idea of " new books," " books of the New Covenant," had not been also present to his mind by way of contrast. But we cannot of course say what books in his view formed this collection of new Scriptures, or whether he would have been prepared precisely to fix its limits.
But other fragments besides these have come down to us under the name of Melito, the genuineness of some of which there seems to be no good reason to doubt. In one of these, derived from Anastasius of Sinai1, allusion is made to the period of 30 years spent by Christ in retirement, which is spoken of by St Luke alone, and of the three years' duration of His Ministry, which is to be learned only from St John. Again, in another fragment2, treating like that just referred to of the Incarnation of the Divine Word, a brief sketch of His earthly life and His passion is given, which corresponds exactly with that in our Gospels. Once more, in an inter- pretation of Isaac's sacrifice, he tells us that the ram is the type of the Lord who was the Lamb3, by which name we are reminded of the Fourth Gospel, though it need not have been taken thence. On the other hand, in one short quotation from Melito given by Anastasius, the actual execution of the death- sentence upon Christ appears to be attributed, in disregard of the narratives of our Gospels, directly to the Jews, as it is in other instances which have come before us4.
1 Otto, Corp. Apol. IX. p. 415. Routh, Reliquiae, I. p. 121. Harnack speaks decidedly on the side of its genuineness in his Gesch. (i. i, p. 250), and somewhat more ambiguously, but on the whole to the same effect, in Chron. I. p. 518. See also Light foot, Essays on Sup. Kel. p. 230 f.
- One of those discovered in recent times in Syriac. See Cureton, Spicil. Syr. p. 53 f. and Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. II. p. lix. f. Also Otto, ib. p. 420. For its genuineness see Harnack, Gesch. p. 251 f. and Chron. ib., though in the latter he adds "full certainty is not attainable"; Lightfoot, ib. pp. 232-7. See also Westcott, Canon, p. 229 f., on the exalted feeling and glowing language of this passage.
3 Otto, ib. Routh, ib. p. 123. The fragment is the third of those from the Catena of Nicephorus. For its genuineness see Harnack, Gesch. \. i, p. 249.
4 Otto, ib. Routh, ib. p. 122. For genuineness see Harnack, Gesch. I. i, pp. 249-50, Chron. I. p. 518. The words are, 6 0«6$ irfrrovOtv viro 5e£ifij 'IffpayXl- ndos. I have spoken above of what appears to be the meaning. In view of the other examples alluded to (see pp. 98 n. 3, io8f., 116), that given above must be considered highly probable, though we ought not to feel too confident, as we have not the context.
The fragments of Apollinaris 141
We pass to Claudius Apollinaris. The Paschal Chronicle quotes two short passages from a work of his on The Passover, which is not elsewhere named1. In the former of these he speaks of some "who say that 'the Lord ate the lamb on the fourteenth with his disciples, and himself suffered on the Great Day of Unleavened Bread, and argued that Matthew's language agrees with their view of the matter; so that their view is not in harmony with the Law, and the Gospels seem according to them to be in conflict." We shall have to consider the fragment from which these words are taken, and also the other one attributed in the same context to Apollinaris, somewhat carefully hereafter in connexion with the subject of Quartodecimanism. But it is obvious that, if the extract is genuine, Apollinaris acknowledged the authority both of St Matthew and St John, and that to suppose a real disagreement between the two appeared to him to be out of the question.
There may be somewhat more reason for feeling uncertain about the genuineness of these fragments than of those of Melito, noticed above2. For (i) in the case of Melito the similarities in thought and style between many fragments attributed to him, and coming to us from different quarters, can be observed3; in that of Apollinaris we cannot apply this test. Nor can a consideration of the attitude of the writer of the fragments to Quartodecimanism assist us in coming to a decision on the question of genuineness, partly because we are left in some uncertainty as to what it was, partly because we cannot be sure what that of Apollinaris was4. (2) The silence of Eusebius and others in regard to the treatise in question is strange. Eusebius does not, indeed, in the case of either Melito or Apollinaris profess to mention any of their works except those with which he was personally acquainted. In the case, however, of those treatises of Melito
1 See Chron, Pasch. They may also be seen in Routh, Rel. I. p. 150. The Paschal Chronicle was probably composed circ. A.D. 630. See Salmon, Diet, of Christ. Bio. I. p. 510.
2 Harnack however thinks that they have been suspected without ground. Gesch. I. i, p. 245.
3 Cp. Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. Rel. p. 233.
4 See below, p. 185 f.
1 42 Letter of the Churches of Vienne arid Lyons
which he would seem to have passed over, there was the less reason for mentioning them because their themes closely resembled those of others which he does mention, and the enumeration of which gave a sufficient idea of Melito's theological interests. One of them may even have been named by him under a slightly different title. It is more curious that a work on such a burning question as the observance of Easter, in which Eusebius himself took much interest, should not have attracted his attention and should not have been known to Socrates or Photius, and yet that the compiler of the Paschal Chronicle should have been able to quote from it. But the explanation of this may be that the latter took the extracts from some other treatise, such as that of Clement of Alexandria, from which he also quotes ; and that Apollinaris's work itself had perished before Eusebius's time.
On the whole we shall be justified in accepting these fragments as genuine on the authority of the Paschal Chronicle.
The Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons.
The moving letter1 written in the name of "the servants of Christ dwelling at Vienne and Lyons in Gaul to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia who have the same faith in and hope of redemption as we have/' may most suitably be noticed here. It must have been received in Asia not long — at furthest not more than a few years — after the threatenings of persecution there had called forth the apologies of Melito and Apollinaris2. This letter, though it does not cite any book of the New (or the Old) Testament by name, contains clear allusions to and quotations from the Gospels according to St Luke and St John, as well as the Acts and the Apocalypse3, also not
1 Ap. Eus. H.E. v. i. and ii.
2 A.D. 177 may be given as the date of the letter, as it usually is. It has been conjectured that Irenaeus may have been the actual writer.
8 Eus. H.E. v. i. 6 (Ro. viii. 18); ib. 9 (Lu. i. 6); ib. 10 (Apoc. xiv. 4); ib. 15 (Jn xvi. 2); ib. 11 (Jn vii. 38); ib. 48 (Jn xvii. 12, or 2 Thess. ii. 3) ; ib. 58 (Apoc. xxii. 1 1 ; as Westcott points out in his Canon, p. 346 n., this quotation is introduced by the formula Iva i) ypaffi irXypwOrj) ; ib. ii. 2 (Phil. ii. 6); ib. 3 (Apoc. i. 5, and Acts iii. 15); ib. 5 (i Pet. v. 6, Acts vii. 59, 60) ; and perhaps others.
The fragments of Dionysius of Corinth 143
a few expressions manifestly drawn from these and other New Testament Scriptures. And the exceedingly natural manner in which all these are introduced suggests that the writings used had become thoroughly familiar to the author and to those whose penman he was, and might be expected to be so to the persons addressed.
Fragments of Dionysius of Corinth.
Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, was the contemporary of Melito and Apollinaris1, and was another of the men of chief mark in the Church at this time. The few extracts from his letters which Eusebius has given us contain several points of great interest, but it is the last of the fragments only which can engage our attention here. These are his words: —
" For when brethren requested me to write letters, I wrote. And the emissaries of the devil have filled these with tares, expunging some things, and adding others; for whom 'the Woe' is appointed. It is not strange forsooth that certain have seized upon the Dominical Scriptures to deal dishonestly with them, since they have even plotted against those which are not such2."
Besides containing an obvious allusion to the parable of the tares in Mt. xiii. 24 f., and to the concluding words of the Apocalypse (xxii. 18, 19), this passage throws a gleam of light upon the dangers of the time, revealing the fact that the guardianship in their integrity and purity of the Scriptures of the New Covenant had already become, and was recognised as being, a serious duty for the Church. When considering more fully the effect of the conflict with Gnosticism upon the formation of the Canon of the Gospels, we shall recur to this language of Dionysius. For the present we will content our- selves with commenting upon some of his expressions. He refers to two ways in which his own letters were tampered
1 He exchanged letters with Soter (Eus. H. E. IV. xxiii. pf.), bishop of Rome (166 — 174); like Melito he had died before A.D. IQO, for when Victor became bishop of Rome there was already another bishop at Corinth (Eus. //. E. v. xxii.). Jerome, De Vir. Illustr. ch. 27, writes of him, "Claruit sub impp. M. Antonino Vero, et L. Aurelio Commodo."
2 Ap. Eus. H. E. IV. xxiii. 12.
144 Theophihis ad Autolycum
with. He does not say that both were practised in regard to " the Dominical Scriptures," but it is natural to suppose that he means this. There can be no doubt that on the one hand he has the Marcionites in mind, against whom, as Eusebius tells us earlier in the chapter, Dionysius himself wrote, and who (as is well known) mutilated St Luke and certain of St Paul's Epistles, the only New Testament writings which they accepted. On the other hand we know that Apocryphal Gospels with Gnostic leanings were put forth; and probably apocryphal passages were inserted in the writings which the Church accepted as Apostolical, or interpretations were so mingled with the text as to deceive the unwary.
Finally, we will dwell for a moment on the remarkable phrase " Dominical Scriptures." There can be no reason to suppose that Dionysius is thinking only of the Gospels. He employs the term, we may believe, because he regarded Christ as the one supreme authority and source of truth in the New Covenant, which we shall find Hegesippus also implying in the expression "the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord1."
Theophilus ad Autolycum.
We now turn our eyes eastward to the great see of Antioch, occupied circ. A.D. 180 by Theophilus, though for how many years before we cannot say. His three books, Ad Autolycum, have come down to us, the last of which at least was composed under Commodus2. These books, though they have for their aim the justification of the faith of Christians, differ from other Apologies in being addressed not to the Roman emperor, or emperors, but to a private person. Theophilus dwells at length on the doctrine of Divine Creation through the Word, and declares that " the Holy Scriptures and all the inspired men " so teach, and proceeds to cite " one of them, John," and to give the first and third verses of the Prologue to his
1 Eus. H. E. IV. xxii. 3.
2 See the allusion to Chryseros, "the freed man of M. Aurelius Verus," who brought down a chronicle which he wrote to the death of that emperor. Ad AutoL ill. 27.
Theophilus ad Autolycum 145
Gospel, though he omits verse two1. Again, he says that "concerning righteousness, of which the Law spoke, the utterances of the prophets, also, and the Gospels are found to agree, because all the inspired men spoke by one spirit of God2." Again, he introduces precepts concerning chastity contained in St Matthew as "the evangelic voice3." Once more, he refers to a passage in St Paul's Epistle to Timothy as "the Divine word4." These expressions shew clearly that the Apostolic writings were held by him to be as truly inspired as those of the Old Testament5. Yet he makes no allusions to, or quotations from, the former in addition to those which have been mentioned, though he has some not very extensive parallels with them6. On the other hand he quotes largely from the ancient Scriptures, especially the Book of Genesis, the Prophets, and Psalms, and from Classical writers, and gives one long passage from "the Sibyl7." He was doubtless influenced by considering what would make most impression upon his readers.
The Works of Tatian.
We have spoken of the remains of four writers who were also eminent bishops ; we now turn to the works of a man who did not hold any representative position, but which have nevertheless an interest and importance of their own. Tatian, the Syrian, can hardly have been less than thirty years of age at the time of his conversion to Christianity, considering what
1 Ad Autol. u. 11.
2 Ib. in. 12.
3 Ib. 13 (Mt. v. 28, 32). He does not, however, give them quite accurately, but with slight changes, partly, it would seem, intended to be explanatory.
4 Ib. ch. 14 (i Tim. ii. 2).
5 Cp. ib. ch. 29. TCJJ/ otiv xpbvw xal rCov dprnj.tvwv airavTUv ffvvr)0 pour fj.fr t»v, bpav £<TTIV TTJV dpxai6rTr)Ta T&V ?T po(f>-qTiK(Jov ypafj.fj.aTuv Kal TT)v deibrrfTa TOV irap' r}fj.iv \&yov, OTL ov 7rp6ff(paros 6 \6yos.
6 In u. 13 there is a parallel with Lu. xviii. 27; the rule of conduct in II. 34 is probably taken from a common form of teaching rather than from Mt. vii. 12. For others see Westcott's Canon, p. 232, n. 5. Tit. iii. 5, 6 and Heb. vi. 7, both in Ad Autol. u. 1 6, may be added.
7 Ib. u. 36.
S. G. 10
146 Chronology of Tatiaris life and works
he had seen and done before it1 ; and this event must at the latest have taken place not long after A.D. 150. Irenaeus' language clearly suggests that Tatian was for some little time under Justin's influence2, first as a hearer, and then while himself engaged in the same work of expounding the Christian Faith and arguing on its behalf. Tatian, also, in his Address to the Greeks, alludes to the conflict between Crescens, the Cynic philosopher, and Justin in a manner which seems to shew that he was familiar with all the circum- stances and was himself mixed up in the affair3. But Justin's own Second Apology, which is attributed with good reason to circ. A.D. 1 5<D4, was written at the time of, or soon after, this episode. We know, further, that Tatian taught in Rome subsequently to Justin's death. Rhodon, in a treatise from which Eusebius gives us several extracts, stated that he had attended upon Tatian's instructions in that city5. It is evident that Rhodon said nothing as to having heard Justin. He also mentioned a " book of problems by Tatian through which he (Tatian) undertook to shew the ambiguity and obscurity of the Divine Scriptures." At the time when Tatian dwelt thus on Old Testament difficulties he must have been tending towards a heretical position ; whereas according to Irenaeus he was kept from falling into error so long as Justin was alive. The work of Tatian in question may not have come to Rhodon's hands till after his own connexion with the author had ceased ; for Rhodon's position was quite orthodox, and he promised to furnish solutions of Tatian's " problems." It seems that Tatian was recognised as a heretic, and also returned to the East, circ. A.D. I/26, and there exercised considerable influence. His death probably occurred not long after A.D. 180. For Irenaeus, writing not many years after this, uses language of him from which we may reasonably infer that he was no
1 See his Address, chh. 35 and 42. 3 Adv. Haer. I. xxviii.
3 Ch. 19. This would hold even if the words, Ka.Qa.irep Kol ^, omitted in Eusebius' quotation of the passage, were not part of the true text. Cp. on the differences of text p. 147 n. 3 below.
4 See above, p. 76.
5 A p. Eus. //. E. v. xiii. i, 8.
6 See Zahn, Forsch. I. pp. 282-4, and Harnack, Chron. I. p. 288.
Chronology of Tatiaris life and works 147
longer living1. Again, his writings are mentioned among others in proof of the fact that " before the time of Victor," i.e. before A.D. 190, "Christ was reckoned Divine," in a reply to the contrary allegations of the Artemonites at the be- ginning of the third century2.
Tatian's Address to the Greeks, the one work of his which has certainly come down to us in its original shape, must have been composed some little time — probably at least a few years — after Justin's Second Apology. This is plain from the different manner in which Justin and Tatian refer to Crescens. The former writes of him as one who was even then plotting his destruction, the latter as a figure of the past. Crescens must either have died, or left Rome, in the interval3. We may, therefore, take A.D. 155 as approximately the earliest date at which Tatian's Address could have been written. It
1 Adv. Haer. I. xxviii. ; and III. xxiii. 7. Jerome, De Vir. Illustr. ch. 29, writes, ''Et hie (i.e. as well as Dionysius and Pinytus) sub imperatore M. Antonino Vero et L. Aurelio Commodo floruit." Tatian's work, however, must have been nearly done when Commodus became sole emperor.
2 Ap. Eus. H. E. v. xxviii. 4.
3 See Justin, Apol. II. ch. 3, and Tatian, Ad Graec. ch. 19: Kphr/ojs ovv, etc. A good part of both passages is quoted by Euseb. H. E. IV. xvi. There are differences between the text of the Address printed from the one extant MS. and the quotation in Eusebius' History, which have been the subject of a good deal of discussion. Zahn (Forsch. I. p. 275 ff.) and Harnack (Texte. u. Untersuch. I. p. 142, and more moderately in Chron. I. p. 285 n.) have maintained the superiority of the former, Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. vol. 26, p. 39 f.) and Funk (Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandhmgen, n. p. 143) on the whole of the latter. The means do not really exist for settling the question, and it is also immaterial which is adopted, so far as the determination of the date of the treatise is concerned. It does not follow from the text of the MS., as Zahn and Harnack think, that Tatian's Address must have been written about the same time as Justin's Second Apology. On the contrary, they have overlooked the contrast between the language of the two in regard to the Crescens incident. It is important, however, to make two little changes in the MS. text of the sentence which follows the words quoted by Eusebius. As they stand there — rivas 5£ civ KO.I 5iu)£cu T&V 0tXocr60wj' el /UTJ /j.6vovs i»/u.as eiuffev; — Justin would be the subject of the verb. But, as Hilgenfeld has pointed out, Justin did not "persecute" anybody; Tatian would not have used this word for his denunciation of the Cynic philosophers ; nor again was Tatian addressing these philosophers, but Greeks in general, to whom y/tas would have to be referred- It is therefore evident that v[j.as has been substituted for i)fj,as — a common textual error. Crescens is the subject and 7/,u,as refers to Justin and himself, or to himself and his fellow- Christians. A further slight consequential change must be made, viz., that of eiwtfet for etuQev, in order that the tense here may agree with the tenses used of Crescens in the preceding sentences. Cp. Funk, I.e. pp. 145-6.
10 — 2
148 Chronology of Tatian s life and works
is more difficult to fix upon a terminus ante quern. Some, e.g. Harnack, have held that Tatian must, when speaking of Crescens' attempt to procure Justin's death, have mentioned the latter's eventual martyrdom, if it had already taken place. But this is not by any means clear ; for the purpose of Tatian in referring to the attack by Crescens is simply to shew the inconsistency of the Cynic philosopher who sought to bring death upon others, which he himself professed not to regard as an evil. Even if Justin had already at a subsequent time suffered death, this might have been passed over, as having no bearing upon the point urged. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Address which justifies Hilgenfeld1 and Funk2 in assuming that Justin's martyrdom had taken place. The words, indeed, " the most admirable Justin ex- claimed," followed by an utterance of his3, would be suitable in this case ; but they would, also, be quite suitable if, as is very probable, the Address was written at a distance from Rome4, where he was not in Justin's immediate vicinity. There is a surer indication of date in the absence of any traces of the heretical views which he held in his latter years5. In point of fact, he does not appear to be conscious of any difference in faith between himself and the mass of simple believers, and he claims to speak on their behalf6. Our conclusion is that the composition of this treatise must be placed between A.D. 155 and 170, and that it is not possible to fix narrower limits7.
1 L.c. p. 43. 2 L.c. P. 147 f. 3 ch. 1 8.
4 See Harnack, Chron. I. p. 287, and references there.
6 His use of the term "aeon" (chh. 20 and 26) has nothing Valentinian about it, as is alleged, for example, in Diet, of Christ. Biog. IV. p. 803 ; nor does his doctrine of the Fall (chh. 7, 12, 15), any more than the doctrine as usually formu- lated, involve the denial of the salvation of Adam ; nor does his attitude to the Old Testament appear to be that which he had assumed when he wrote the "Book of Problems " ; nor does he even say anything which savours of Encratitism, though we feel that the earnestness with which he insists on the effort necessary, in order to recover the indwelling of spirit ( = "the image of God") in our nature, might incline him to that doctrine.
• See ch. 33.
7 (a) Zahn adduces the use of ^ScunXetfs twice in the singular (chh. 4 and 19) as evidence that only one emperor was reigning, and that therefore the date must have been before the double rule of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (A.D. 161 — 169). But might not one naturally be regarded as the chief? In any case, it
Tatiaris Address to the Greeks 149
His Address to the Greeks shews admirably how the subject and purpose of a work by a Christian writer might naturally affect the number and character of the Scriptural quotations in it. This discourse contains clear evidence of the knowledge and use of the Fourth Gospel, but none, or scarcely any, of acquaintance with the other Gospels1. More- over, in regard to the Fourth, it is almost exclusively the language and thoughts of the Prologue that we meet with2. We have besides only the words " God is a Spirit3." The explanation is, however, obvious when we notice that — apart from his attacks on Paganism — the themes of which Tatian here treats are the Creation of the world and the nature of man. If the work concerning the Christian system, which he promises in the present treatise, had come down to us, we should in all probability have found quite a different class of Evangelical quotations and parallels there4.
The chief interest, however, felt of late in Tatian has naturally been connected with his Diatessaron. Through a remarkable series of investigations and discoveries, the general character and structure of the work, as it must have
would be natural to speak of only one in such general expressions as those of Tatian.
(b) On the allusion to Proteus, see Funk, I.e. p. 148.
(c) The fact that there is no sign of Tatian's having been influenced by Justin's First Apology in the composition of his own, which Harnack gives as a reason for the early date (circ. A.D. 152) that he assigns, really makes strongly against it. Harnack himself hplds that Justin's Apology had been written two or three years before this, and that Tatian was living in Rome and in close intercourse with Justin then, or soon afterwards. It is almost impossible that he should not have read the Apology soon after it was composed, and it would on Harnack's supposition be still fresh in his mind. Ten years, or more, later he might to a great extent have forgotten it, and if he was not in Rome, he might well have no copy by him. Evi- dently he was a man of independent mind, who would take his own line ; and he would be the more ready to do so when he had been a convert for some years. In this connexion his claim to originality (ch. 35 init.) should be noticed.
1 Westcott (Canon, p. 327) points out a parallel with Mt. xiii. 44 in ch. 30.
2 The words "the darkness comprehendeth not the light" (Jn i. 5) are introduced in ch. 13 as "that which hath been spoken." There are parallels with Jn i. i in ch. 5, and i. 3 in ch. 19. The doctrine of the Logos is also presented in other parts of the treatise.
3 See ch. 4.
4 Westcott also observes that "there is abundant evidence to prove his deep reverence for the writings of the Old Testament, and yet only one anonymous quo- tation from it occurs in his Address" Canon, p. 326.
15° Tatiaris Diatessaron
left Tatian's hands, have been ascertained. It is no longer possible to doubt that it was in the main a compilation from our Four Gospels, designed to give the Gospel history con- tained in these several records in the form of a continuous narrative, though some " apocryphal " matter was also intro- duced. In .later editions of the work some forms of expres- sion resembling those of the Gospels may have been made to conform to them more closely than they did at first. It is more doubtful whether the distinctly " apocryphal " element was originally larger than it would seem to have been according to the existing evidence ; for there was clearly a disposition in the Church for long after the second century, and indeed throughout the Middle Ages, to be interested in and to preserve points in regard to the Gospel story which were not found in the narratives of the Canonical Gospels. There is, therefore, small ground for thinking that those who used the Diatessaron would have ignored " apocryphal " additions to the Gospel narrative, or that these would have been omitted in versions of it.
The Diatessaron in Syriac became, and continued to be for two or three centuries, the chief record of the Gospel history in use in the Syriac-speaking Church of Edessa and the regions beyond ; while early in the fifth century, Theo- doret, bishop of Cyrrhus, between Antioch and the Euphrates, found a large number of copies of it in the churches of his diocese, presumably in Greek. We do not hear of its having obtained at any time much circulation in any other district, although it was translated into Arabic and Latin. Most probably then it was put forth by Tatian after he had returned (about A.D. 170) to Northern Syria. His primary object in constructing it may very likely have been to furnish his fellow-countrymen with the contents of those Gospels which they did not yet possess in their own language1, and which he himself had learnt to value during his sojourn in the West. The question has been discussed whether it was first composed in Greek or Syriac. We may adopt the former alternative, without prejudice to the view that Tatian's ulti- mate object was to produce it in Syriac. For it would clearly 1 See below, pp. 260 f.
iatessaron 151
have been easier for him to compile it first in Greek from the Greek Gospels, and then to translate it, than to go through the double process of compiling and translating at once. But he would seem to have acquired influence among the Greeks, also, in North-Western Syria, and this may have secured a certain amount of circulation in this district for the work in Greek.
The Diatessaron> as the composition of one who had become a convert to Christianity and been a hearer of Justin in Rome about the middle of the second century, and who had himself lived and taught there for some time between A.D. 150 and 170, supplies evidence as to the position of the Four Gospels in that important Church at this time. It also illustrates that habit of combining the different Gospels, of which we have already seen other less considerable examples, and which seems to shew that the distinct value of each of the Gospels was as yet imperfectly appreciated. At the same time it must be remembered that the idiosyncrasies of Tatian, and perhaps, also, his nationality, render inferences that may be drawn from his practice, as to that of the Churches of Western Asia and of Europe, to some extent uncertain.
The Writings of Athenagoras.
One other apologist, Athenagoras, must be briefly noticed. We have no trustworthy information about him beyond that which is conveyed in the title and address of his Appeal on behalf of Christians, He is described as an Athenian and a philosopher, and the treatise was addressed to M. Aurelius and to Commodus, and must accordingly have been composed A.D. 177 — 1 80. It contains parallels with St John and with St Matthew and probably also with St Luke1. In Athe- nagoras' treatise On the Resurrection words are quoted from I Cor. xv. and 2 Cor. v. as being the Apostle's2, and another
1 Suppl. pro Christ., ch. 4 fin. (Jn i. 3) ; ch. TO (Jn i. 3, x. 30, 38) ; ch. n (Mt. v. 44, 45; a clause is also inserted here found only in Lu. vi. 28, according to the best text); ch. 12 (Mt. v. 46; again there is a clause inserted which is found only in Lu. vi. 33); ch. 32 (Mt. v. 28); ch. 33 (Mt. xix. 9f.).
2 ch. 1 8 fin.
152 Doctrine of the Logos in Second Century
reminiscence of the former of these appears a little further on ; but there seem to be no other parallels with New Testament writings.
A noteworthy feature in the teaching of the four apologists, Melito, Theophilus, Tatian and Athenagoras, who have come before us in this chapter, as well as in that of Justin, is the place held by the doctrine of the Logos. They represent a class of Christian believers who had received and been affected by the higher Greek education of the age, and who felt the need for a religious philosophy, but had resisted the attrac- tions of Gnostic speculation. They found what they wanted, the right point of view from which to regard the relation of the Absolute Divine Being to the finite, material Universe, and to the workings of Divine Providence in human history, in the doctrine which in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel had been set forth with a force and clearness never before attained, and brought for the first time into connexion with the Person of the Christ, but for which preparation had been made, according to the lines of a true development, in the thought of Jewish theologians, who heartily believed in the Old Testament as a Divine revelation. This is a deeply interesting point in the history of Christian doctrine ; here, however, I refer to it only in order to note that the occupation of men's minds with this subject in the middle part of the second century must have served to bring the Fourth Gospel into a new prominence in the Church1.
1 This will be a suitable point at which to refer to the Epistle to Diognetus, an Apology addressed to a private .person, an educated heathen friend, like Athe- nagoras' Autolycus. This little treatise, or a portion of it, may perhaps belong to the period included in this chapter. Lightfoot (in the Apostolic Fathers, ed. by Lightfoot and Harmer, pp. 487-8) holds that circ. A.D. 150 is the most probable date for chh. t — 10, and that the two remaining chapters, which are admittedly later, may have been composed by Pantaenus a decade or two after the middle of the century. Harnack assigns chh. i — 10 to "the third century or at the earliest the end of the second" (Chron. I. p. 515). I incline to the same opinion, and accordingly I refrain from making use of this work. I may state, however, that there are parallels with Mt. and Lu. and with the Fourth Gospel and ist Ep. of Jn, as well as with several Pauline Epistles, in the first ten chapters.
Chronology of Hegesippus life 153
Hegesippus.
I come now to Hegesippus, who is placed by Eusebius at the head of the writers of this generation1. My chief reason for having deferred to speak of him till this point is that he is known to us only through quotations from, and statements about, his Memoirs, and that this work, or at least the most important extract from it which we possess, taken from the fifth and concluding book, was written not much before A.D. 1 80, or according to other reckonings A.D. 175. "The Corinthian Church," he tells us, " continued in the right doctrine up to the time that Primus was bishop in Corinth ; with them I consorted when sailing to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, in which we were mutually refreshed with right doctrine. And having come to Rome I drew up a succession as far as to Anicetus, to whom Eleu- therus was deacon. And Soter succeeded Anicetus, after whom came Eleutherus. And in each succession and in each city that which is held accords with what the Law declares, and the Prophets, and the Lord2." So then, when Hegesippus wrote, Eleutherus was bishop of Rome, whose accession according to Eusebius' History*, and Jerome's version of his Chronicle, took place in A.D. 177, but which may possibly have occurred a few years earlier*. It should be noticed, however, that, as this same passage shews, Hegesippus had long been engaged in collecting the information which he gives. In the words " I drew up a succession " I have followed the reading of the MSS. (StaSo%^ eVo lya-a^v). Yet this phrase is no doubt a somewhat strange one, and for SiaSoxJv the emendation Siarpi/Srjv has been suggested5. If this is to be adopted, Hegesippus states that " he stayed in Rome till Anicetus," which implies that he reached it
1 H. E. iv. 21.
2 Ap. Eus. H. E. iv. xxii. 2, 3.
3 H. E. v. Prooem. i.
4 According to the Armenian Version of the Chronicle, A.D. 173; Harnack, Chron. i. p. 200, arrives at A.D. 174 as the year.
5 See Heinichen, in loc.
154 Chronology of Hegesippus life
before Anicetus became bishop (circ. A.D. 157, or even earlier1). But even according to the reading above adopted, his stay in Rome must have preceded the accession of Soter (A.D. 169, or earlier2). Otherwise the list of bishops of Rome, made by him at the time of his visit there, would not have ended with Anicetus, nor would he have introduced the remark as to the deacon of Anicetus, and appended the names of his successors, in the manner he does. We have further to allow for his journey to Rome, which included (as we have seen) a stay in Corinth, and (it would seem) visits to many other places also ; for (as we learn from Eusebius in the context) he stated that " during a journey to Rome he consorted with very many bishops and received the same teaching from all3." It may be added that another personal allusion which he makes shews that in A.D. 175-80 he must at least have reached middle life, and may have been growing old. When referring to the institution of the cult of Antinous under the Emperor Hadrian he speaks of it as " introduced in our time4."
From his language in regard to his journey to Rome it is evident that he came from the East ; and since he seems to have been not only a Jewish convert but also specially familiar with the traditions of the Palestinian Church, and as he knew the Gospel according to the Hebrews •, and had at least some acquaintance with Hebrew and Aramaic6, it is most probable that his home was in Palestine, or at least somewhere in Syria.
Hegesippus held an important place in the Tubingen theory of the early history of the Church, as a supposed witness for the Judaic and Anti-Pauline character of the Church during a great part of the second century. It is
1 The Armenian, A.D. 152; Harnack, ib. circ. A.D. 155.
2 Armenian, A.D. 164; Harnack, ib. circ. A.D. 166.
3 Eus. H. E. iv. xxii. i.
4 Ib. IV. viii. i. Manifestly, however, when Eusebius (H. E. II. xxiii. 3) speaks of him as tirl TTJS TT/JWTTJS TU>V 6.iroffrb\<jiv y(i>6f*.fvos SiaSox^s, and Jerome (De Vir. Illuslr. 22), probably following Eusebius, as "vicinus apostolicorum temporum," this is to go too far.
8 Eus. H. E. iv. xxii. 7.
The tenor of Hegesippus testimony 155
unnecessary at the present day to examine this view at length1. It may suffice to say, in the first place, that there is no good ground for attributing opinions of the kind indi- cated to Hegesippus, and that if he had held them he would not have won the unqualified approval that he does from Eusebius, who had the Memoirs of Hegesippus before him, which fully revealed, he tells us, their author's mind2. Further, it would have been impossible to understand what we know to have been the tone and temper of the Church in the last quarter of the century, if its spirit in the immediately preceding time was so very different. There is not the slightest trace of the operation of any cause which could have brought about a change so great and general. And Hegesippus is in reality an important witness that none such had taken place8.
But we shall do well to consider somewhat more closely what we know about his Memoirs. One of the aims of this work, and perhaps the principal one, was to combat Gnosti- cism4. When he speaks of "right doctrine," Gnostic heresy was doubtless present to his mind as the opposite thereto, for it was the one great intellectual enemy of the Faith in the middle of the second century. This is made the more evident bv his allusion to the teaching of " the Law and the Prophets and the Lord." For the truly Divine character and permanent value of the Old Testament revelation were some of the chief points at issue in the controversy with Gnosticism.
Now, on comparing the notices of Hegesippus' book with that of Irenaeus Against Heresies, we can discern that the
1 Let me quote here Harnack's judgment, Chron. I. p. 312: "jedenfalls 1st er kein Judenchrist gewesen, sondern ein Vertreter des jungen katholischen Christenthums." The reader who desires to see the question more fully discussed may consult Weizsacker's excellent art. on Hegesippus in Herzog's Real-Encycl. This article, originally published in 1856, has maintained its place in Hauck's largely recast edition of this Encyclopaedia.
2 H. E. iv. xxii. i.
3 Cp. Eus. H. E. iv. viii. 2.
4 Jerome (De Vir. Illuslr. ch. 22), who probably knew Hegesippus' Memoirs only from Eusebius, seems to have given currency to a wrong view of it when he described the work as a continuous history of the Church from the Passion of the Lord to his own day. Cp. Weizsacker, ib., and Westcott, Canon, p. 210. But it is unnecessary for us to discuss its precise character and object, which indeed are hard to determine for lack of information.
156 Hegesippus Appeal to Tradition
same line of argument was employed in the former as we find in the third book of the latter. That is to say, Hege- sippus confronts the Gnostic theories with the tradition of Apostolic teaching preserved in the several Churches, the trustworthiness of which tradition was guaranteed by their official heads, who had succeeded one another in an orderly manner and in uninterrupted lines. The fact that he should reason thus is most important. It is true that the completion of Hegesippus' work cannot, from what has been observed above as to its date, have preceded by many years the composition of that of Irenaeus ; but the method of refuting the Gnostics which Hegesippus adopts had commended itself to him a quarter of a century before, and he had long been engaged in enquiries connected therewith.
We may also refer here to the statements which Eusebius quotes from Hegesippus with regard to the rise of the Gnostic sects1. We may trace in them the intention to shew that from the comparatively late time at which they sprang up, their doctrines could not be taken for the original teaching of Christianity. It will be readily perceived that this line of argument would be specially fitted to impress the majority of Christians, men and women of simple piety. It might, I believe, be shewn that the restraining force of tradition not only fixed limits to, but determined the character and directed the course of, the development of doctrine. And so also when the question of deciding definitely what writings of the New Covenant were to be regarded as authoritative arose, it could not fail to exert an influence, and I believe we shall see that it was the strongest one, in their selection. Whether this question had presented itself to the mind of Hegesippus we cannot say. So far as we know, Hegesippus dealt directly only with the question "What is the true Apostolic faith?" In Irenaeus himself this is up to a certain point kept distinct from, and has the priority over, the other question, "What are the genuine Apostolic writings2?" Nevertheless, in one more item of information about Hegesippus' Memoirs which Eusebius gives us, we have an indication, to the same
1 H. E. in. xxxii. 7: IV. xxii. 5.
2 See esp. the treatment of the two questions Adv. Haer. m. chh. i. — xi.
Hegesippus and the Hebrew Gospel 157
effect as that in the language of Dionysius of Corinth already considered, of the circulation of those Gnostic forgeries, which at the first, more than any other cause, promoted the formu- lation of the Church's Canon of Scripture1.
The mention, however, of quotations from the Gospel accg to the Hebrews by Hegesippus may seem to prove the existence of a state of things in which there was still considerable freedom as to the Scriptures used. In a certain way it does so, but chiefly as revealing a difference between the practice of East and West2. We have, moreover, already remarked that in the West, too, this Gospel was not regarded as " apocryphal " in the sense that others were, so that its use must not be taken to prove laxity in other respects.
Eminent Gnostic teachers of the second generation.
Some distinguished followers of the founders of the two chief Alexandrian Gnostic schools belong to the period now under consideration. We have already seen in discussing a quotation in Hippolytus' Refutatio that, if the author there who makes use of the Fourth Gospel is not Basilides, he may very probably be " his true son and disciple Isidore." But we are more concerned now with two celebrated Valentinians,
1 H. E. IV. xxii. 8. "Discussing about the books called apocryphal, he says that some of them were forged by certain heretics in his own time." For the remark of Dionysius of Corinth, see above, p. 143.
2 It is not to be inferred that Hegesippus did not use the Canonical Gospels from Eusebius' statement (If. JE. IV. xxii. 7), that "he quotes some things from the Gospel accg to the Hebreivs." See Sanday, Gospels in the Second Centttry, p. 138 ff. and Westcott, Canon, pp. 212, 213. Nevertheless Eusebius plainly implies that he therein shewed a certain affection for this other Gospel, which was natural in one with his antecedents. For he adds at the end of the sentence the words which seem to apply to the whole of it — "thereby shewing that he was a believer of Hebrew origin" (e/j.<f>a{vui> e^'E^paluv eavrov TreTrto-reu/c^ai).
Eusebius says of Hegesippus, £/c re rou /ca#' 'E/3paiovs evayyeXlov /cat TOV Supta/coD /cat iStwy e'/c TTJS 'E/3pat5os 5taX^/crou TWO, rlQ-qaw. I cannot think that Zahn is right (Kanon, II. p. 657 n. 3) in his remark, "Eusebius refers not to two languages, but to two Gospels." We nowhere else hear of a distinct form of the Gospel called the Syriac one. It seems to me more probable that the use by Eusebius of these different phrases betokens that he did not quite know how to describe the lan- guage of the Gospel in question. Very possibly it may have been purer Hebrew in some parts than in others.
158 Ptolemaeus and Heracleon
Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, both of whom, we may con- fidently say, were prominent teachers and had reached middle life, if they had not passed it, before A.n. iSo1.
After Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. I. Praef. and i. — vii.) has given a general account of the system of Ptolemaeus and his adherents — the Gnostic school which was most important in his own day, or at least that one with which he had himself chiefly come in contact — he proceeds (ch. viii.) to remark that they endeavour to support their novel doctrines by strained inter- pretations of the parables of Christ, or of the utterances of prophets, or of the words of Apostles. He gives examples, and among them there are unquestionable applications of St Matthew, St Luke and St John2. It is naturally more difficult to prove the use of St Mark ; but it may be observed that the first word from the Cross is quoted exactly as in that Gospel and not as in the parallel in St Matthew3.
Many of Heracleon's comments on St John have been preserved for us by Origen in his own commentary on that Gospel. Heracleon was in all probability the first writer to produce a regular commentary on any book of Scripture. One or two comments by him on St Luke also are given by Clement of Alexandria4. We have no similar knowledge of his use of St Matthew and St Mark, but there is no reason to think that he rejected them. The statement of Irenaeus — that the Valentinians erred by excess not by defect, as to the Gospels which they received — should be borne in mind5.
Dr Salmon argues that the use made of the Fourth Gospel by these Valentinian teachers who flourished circ. A.D. 170-80 proves that it must have been acknowledged before the
1 Ptolemaeus was still alive, it would seem, when Irenaeus wrote his treatise on Heresies ; but he was the head of a flourishing school, whose system was already formulated {Adv. Haer. i. praef.). Irenaeus had indeed probably become acquainted with it and combated it several years before in Rome. On the date of Heracleon, see A. E. Brooke, Texts and Studies, I. 4, pp. 33-4, and Salmon, Diet, of Christ. Bio. n. 900.
2 See esp. ib. chh. viii. xx. and xxv.
3 Ib. viii. 2.
4 The fragments of Heracleon have been collected and edited by A. E. Brooke, Texts and Studies , 1.4.
5 Adv. Haer. ill. xi. 9.
Ptolemaeus and Heracleon 159
Valentinians separated from the orthodox1. This contention, however, does not seem to me valid. If, subsequently to the formation of the Valentinian school, a document obtained in the Church an authority which it did not at an earlier time possess, there would have been nothing, in the circumstance of its tardily acquired position, to prevent the members of that school from adopting it as a sacred writing of their own. Gnostics generally, and Valentinians in particular, were far less scrupulous than the Catholic Church in regard to the writings which they recognised. And they would have felt that there was an advantage in using any which the Church held in reverence, provided they could put their own interpre- tation upon them.
Nevertheless, the attention bestowed on the Gospel accg to St John by these Valentinians of the second generation is not unimportant. It shews strikingly that its position must have been a firmly established one before they began to teach as they did. For their conspicuous patronage of it would seriously have hindered its acceptance by the Church, if that had still been in question ; while their efforts to prove their own opinions by means of it are a sign of the place it held in general estimation2.
The Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs.
We shall now, before closing this chapter, have the interest of noticing the earliest Christian relic from the province of North Africa, a region to which the Faith had been brought subsequently to the Apostolic Age, but which was destined
1 Diet, of Chr. Bio. 1 1. p. 900.
2 For the Evangelic quotations in the Clementine Homilies, I may refer to Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century (1876) ch. 6, and Westcott on the Canon, p. 291 ff. Dr Sanday gave the middle of the second century as the time of the composition of this work, and before and at the time when he wrote this was the view of many scholars. So much obscurity, however, in reality hangs over the date alike of the Homilies and the Recognitions, and over other circumstances of their pro- duction, that it does not seem to me possible to employ them usefully in connexion with our present enquiry. Dr Hort was led by his investigations to assign the •jreplodot on which both were based, to the first or second decade of the third century (Notes introductory to the study of the Clementine Recognitions, a Course of lectures delivered in 1884, Pub- 1901, pp. 86 — 90).
160 The Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs
to produce, in the course of some three centuries between the introduction of Christianity there and the Vandal desolation, three of the most remarkable and most widely influential of all Western Christians. Owing to a happy discovery made by Dr Armitage Robinson1 in 1889, we possess the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs in the original Latin. A.D. 180 is also seen to have been the year of the trial described, and doubtless the record was contemporary. We are concerned here only with one answer made by the spokesman of the little band of confessors. The proconsul asked, " What have you in your case ? " Speratus replied, " Books and letters of Paul, a righteous man2." The classification u books " and " epistles of Paul " is at first sight perplexing. The explanation may be that the idea of letters and of a book are distinct. A collection of letters has not the character of such a continuous historical narrative, or treatise, as would commonly have occupied a single roll. St Paul's three longest letters would have filled one roll, the remaining ten another, each of less size than one which would have contained the Gospel according to St Luke, or the Acts of the Apostles. Even, then, if the letters of Paul were all inscribed in one or two rolls (libri), these might have been described differently owing to the special character of their contents. But the letters may also have been preserved after another fashion, namely, either tied together in bundles of leaves (fasciculi), or on tablets bound two or three together (codicilliy.
What the libri were, with which the epistulae Pauli are coupled, it is, of course, impossible to say. The presump- tion, however, is that among them there were one or more Gospels ; there may also have been Scriptures of the Old Testament.
Were these Scriptures in Greek or in Latin ? The latter is, at least, not impossible. The evidence of Tertullian's works a few years later is on the whole favourable to the view that,
1 See Texts and Studies, i. 2, p. io6ff., and cp. Zahn II. p. 992 ff.
2 "Saturninus proconsul dixit : Quae sunt res in capsa vestra? Speratus dixit: Libri et epistulae Pauli viri justi."
3 Cp. Birt, Antike Buchivesen, pp. 21 and 95.
Translation of the Scriptures into Latin 161
when he wrote, a Latin Version of the New Testament, or of a considerable portion of it, already existed1.
1 Zahn (Kan. I, p. 51 ff.) has maintained that there was no Latin Bible in the time of Tertullian (circ. A.D. 200). But the phenomena in Tertullian's writings, on which he relies to prove this, may well be explained by supposing simply that no Latin version had as yet become in any sense authorised through usage, and that, as Tertullian himself knew Greek, he preferred in general to make his own transla- tions from the original. In addition to arguments for the existence of a Latin Version which may be drawn from particular passages of Tertullian (for which see H. A. A. Kennedy in Hastings' Diet, of Bible, in. p. 55), there is the proba- bility that if those of his readers who knew only Latin were precluded from consulting the Scriptures of the Old and New Covenant for themselves, this fact would have appeared clearly somewhere from his language. He would have declared to them the meaning of the original as one giving them information, about that which they could not learn by themselves, or he would have appealed to such as did understand Greek for corroboration.
S. G. U
CHAPTER V.
THE ASIATIC TRADITION IN REGARD TO THE APOSTLE JOHN.
WE shall presently have to consider the evidence supplied by Irenaeus and other writers of the last two decades of the second century and later as to the position held by the Four Gospels in the Church at that time, and in the light of it to review the various indications which we have met with of their use in the earlier decades of the century. In that last portion of the century the authority of the Gospel accg to St John is recognised as heartily and undoubtingly as that of the other three. It has a place in " the Fourfold Gospel," and much that may be said in regard to the significance of this fact applies to all four alike. There are, however, certain special questions in regard to the history of the reception of the Fourth Gospel of which it will be most convenient to treat before we attempt to form a more general estimate. These are all connected more or less directly with the validity of the tradition which comes to us, as it would seem, from the Church of the province of Asia, to the effect that John the Apostle resided and laboured there during his later years, and there composed the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel.
In our own generation the truth of this whole tradition in regard to the Apostle John has been and is denied. The earlier impugners, indeed, of the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel did not for the most part call in question the sub- stantial truth of the rest of the commonly accepted account of the latter portion of St John's life. On the contrary, his authorship of the Apocalypse, which presupposed intimate relations with the Churches of the province of Asia, was a
The questions at issue 163
strong point in the Tubingen theory. For this, they held, proved the Jewish, Antipauline position of that Apostle ; while they urged that the contrast between it and the Fourth Gospel rendered it impossible to attribute the latter to him. Others, too. of their objections against the Johannine author- ship of the Gospel derived at least part of their cogency from the supposition that he did reside in Asia. At the present time, however, those who deny to John, the son of Zebedee, any part, or at least anything beyond a very indirect and inconsiderable part, in the production of the Fourth Gospel, usually dispute, also, his sojourn in Ephesus1.
It would involve much repetition, if we were to attempt to consider separately the trustworthiness first of one and then of another portion of the tradition, for the evidence applicable to each is largely the same. But it will be necessary in certain parts of our discussion, and in coming to our final conclusions, to distinguish between the two positions which have been indicated, that of those who deny only the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, and that of those who reject in toto the common tradition respecting the latter years of St John. Though the former view has, I believe, difficulties of its own, it may well seem still to many to be the one which takes fullest account of the evidence as a whole, while it is equally significant as regards the main subject of our enquiry. For the question itself of the Ephesine sojourn of St John must always derive its chief
1 One of the first to throw doubt upon the residence of John in Ephesus was Liilzelberger, Die kirchliche Tradition iiber den Apostel Johannes und seine Schriften in ihrer Grundlosigkeit nachgewiesen (1840). See pp. 105, 149, 162 etc. Keim has disputed it in his Jesus of Nazara, I. pp. 218 — 226 (pub. in German, 1867); also J. Scholten, Der Apostel Johannes in Kleinasien; and Holtzmann, Einleit. in N. T. (ist ed. 1885) 3rd ed., pp. 470-5; H. Delff, Rabbi Jesus von Nazareth (1889), P- 68 ff. ; Das Vierte Evangelium (1890), p. iff.; Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannes in 5th ed. of Meyer's Comm. on New Test. (1896), p. 41 ff., and Encycl. BibL I. p. 198; Harnack in Chron. I. (1897), as part of his investigation into the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 656-80, to be taken with pp. 320-40; Schmiedel, Encycl. BibL M. cols. 2552-3.
On the other hand the truth of this portion of the ecclesiastical tradition about St John was maintained by Hilgenfeld, the last and one of the most open-minded of the great critics of the Tubingen School, in his Einleit. in das N. T. (1875), P- 395 ff.
II — 2
164 Points to be considered
interest and importance from its connexion with that con- cerning his relation to the Gospel.
We will examine (i) the silence of the Sub-apostolic Age in regard to the Apostle John; (2) the reference, or references, to him by Papias, the only writer before Justin who names him. Next (3) we will endeavour to ascertain what may be known concerning "John the Elder," with whom, it is said, the Apostle John was confused. Three subjects must after this be considered which bear exclusively upon the question of the relation of the Apostle John to the Gospel which bears his name: viz. (4) the differences between it and the Apoca- lypse ; (5) Quartodecimanism ; (6) the so-called " Alogi." Thus far we shall be engaged in discussing facts which are held to be inconsistent with the common tradition, and the theory which is propounded to explain how it arose. We shall then turn (7) to strictures upon the testimony of two of the chief witnesses for the tradition, (a) Irenaeus, (b) Poly- crates ; and lastly (8) we will review the case as a whole.
(i) The silence of the Sub-apostolic Age.
I will enumerate the chief instances in which it is, or is thought to be, strange that there should be no allusion to the Apostle John, if he was, or had been, a prominent figure in the Church in the province of Asia. It will be convenient, as each in turn comes before us, that we should try to estimate its exact force. But I do not forget that even if they, or several of them, can be separately accounted for in a more or less satisfactory manner, they may yet be weighty in combination1.
Those who hold that the Epistle to the Ephesians, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Address to the Elders at Mi- letus in Acts xx., were composed in the last two decades of the first century, may urge the absence in them of all indications that one of the Apostles was still, or recently had
1 Man makelt an jedem Einzelnen dieser Zeugen...Aber iiberwaltigend ist doch ihr gemeinsames Schweigen etc. Holtzmann, Einleit. p. 470. The prin- ciple here indicated is one which needs to be remembered in other cases besides the present one, and by critics of very diverse schools.
John not named by Clement or Ignatius 165
been, teaching at Ephesus. But even if it could be con- sidered proved that the documents in question ought to be assigned to such a late time, the characteristic noted might be due to the effort of the writers not to use language incon- sistent with their personation of St Paul.
We pass to the Epistle of Clement of Rome. Although he was writing in the name of a Church, and to a Church, with which the Apostle John had no connexion, he might have been expected, it is said, to have alluded to such an inter- esting fact as the continuance in life still of one of the Twelve, which could scarcely fail to be known to him. But it is not unreasonable to suppose that, while the tradition as to the long life and later labours of St John was substanti- ally true, there may yet have been some exaggeration in the representation that he lived "till the times of Trajan," that is, till two or three years later than the date at which Clement was writing; and even if he had died only a few years before, there would have been no special reason for Clement's referring to him.
The silence of the Epistles of Ignatius"^ a far more serious difficulty. In writing to the Ephesians he expresses the desire that he " may be found in the company of those Christians of Ephesus who were ever of one mind with the Apostles in the power of Jesus Christ1." St Paul and St John may be more particularly in his mind. But as in writing to the Romans he names Peter and Paul2, why does he not here name both Paul, the founder of the Church of Ephesus, and also that venerable Apostle who, according to the belief which we have under consideration, had lived and taught there more recently and for a longer period ? In the im- mediate sequel he mentions Paul only. There was indeed a special reason for referring to Paul, because Ignatius saw in that Apostle's stay at Ephesus on his way to martyrdom a parallel with his own case3. Nevertheless the notice of St Paul might naturally have suggested one of St John.
1 Ad Eph. ch. ii.
2 Ad Rom. ch. 4. "I do not enjoin you, as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am a convict ; they were free, but I am a slave to this very hour."
3 Ad Eph. ch. 12.
1 66 John not named by Ignatius
We should have expected that appeals would have been made to the teaching of both these Apostles in order to confirm those warnings against errors concerning the Person of Christ, and those exhortations to unity, of which Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephcsians and others of his Epistles are full. The fact, however, that he does not use St John's authority for this purpose cannot be pressed, for he does not use even St Paul's name in this way. But at least some personal reference to St John would have been natural in writing to the Church at Ephesus. So too he might have been expected to recall to Polycarp the close ties which bound him to the Apostle John, and to remind the Smyrnaeans of the authority which their bishop derived from this connexion. That Poly- carp himself in his short Epistle to the Philippians should not speak of St John, in spite of the personal reasons he might have for doing so, is not so surprising because the Church which he was addressing had not come under St John's influence.
It does not seem satisfactory to regard this early silence respecting the Apostle John as merely accidental; and we will presently consider whether it can be more or less reason- ably explained consistently with the supposition that the common tradition is true. But it will be natural to defer doing this until, near the close of this whole discussion, we have assured ourselves that the evidence in favour of that tradition is too strong to be set aside, and that a way must be sought of reconciling thereto facts which seem to con- flict with it.
(2) The evidence of Papias,
Outside the New Testament Papias is the earliest writer who names the Apostle John, and he is adduced as a witness by those who call in question even the Ephesine sojourn.
Papias is alleged, in two recently recovered fragments of later Greek ecclesiastical writers, to have stated in the second book of his Expositions that the Apostle John, like his brother James, was slain by the Jews. If there were reason to think that Papias really said this, it would still be permissible to
The evidence of Papias as to John 167
doubt whether he meant, as he is assumed to have done, that John was put to death in Jerusalem. The Jews even in Gentile cities seem often to have instigated persecution against the Christians, and they might not unnaturally be described by a Christian writer as the authors of a martyrdom thus brought about. It is most probable, however, that the statement in question has been wrongly imputed to Papias. One of the writers who credit him with it is Georgius Hamartolus, a chronicler of the tenth century. At first he was the only one known to have done so1, and so long as this was the case it was natural to suppose that in the sentence in question the text of Georgius was corrupt. This seemed the more likely because in the same context, without making any attempt to reconcile the contradictory accounts, he refers to a passage of Origen in which the exile of John in Patmos is coupled with the martyrdom of James2. Now, however, it has been rendered probable that Georgius, in reporting Papias' statement, is copying an older writer. For the same assertion in regard to Papias has been dis- covered in a collection of extracts, many of which (it would seem) were taken from Philip of Side, a Church historian who flourished in the early part of the fifth century3. So far then, the case appears to be strengthened for attributing the statement in question to Papias. Philip of Side, however, is a most unsatisfactory witness. Both Socrates and Photius give us a very unfavourable view of him as a writer4, and some examples of his quite exceptional aptitude for making the gravest blunders are known to us5. And it does not seem pos- sible to suppose that he can in the present instance have truly represented Papias. The latter's book had in all probability been read by Irenaeus, as it certainly had by Eusebius, and doubtless by many others. A statement by him to the effect
1 Nolte first published the passage of Georgius, Theol. Quartalschrift, XLIV. (1862), p. 466.
2 See Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. ReL p. 211 ff. Harnack still adheres to this view, Chron. I. p. 666.
3 Found by de Boor and pub. in Texts u. Unlersuch. (1889), V. 2, p. 167 ff.
4 Socrates, H. E. vn. 27, Photius, Cod. 35.
5 See Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 95. Neander's opinion of him is quoted in Diet, of Christ. Bio. IV. p. 356.
1 68 The evidence of Papias as to John
that John, like James, had met with martyrdom at the hands of the Jews, the great enemies of Christianity, if it did not modify tradition, as it would most likely have done, must at least have attracted attention and been commented on1.
We have yet to notice the reference to the Apostle John in a genuine fragment of Papias. In the well-known passage from the Introduction to his Expositions he writes2: " If perchance anyone came who had followed the teaching of the elders, I questioned them regarding the words of the elders, what Andrew, or what Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say." It is remarked3 that no special prominence is assigned to John the Apostle by this bishop of Hierapolis, on the confines of the region where John is said to have taught. The order of the list, from whatever point of view it is regarded, is a somewhat strange one. It is at least possible that John and Matthew may be con- joined because they were evangelists. And this may explain also their being placed last. Papias is referring here to his gleanings from the oral teaching of the Apostles in regard to the words and deeds of Christ. John and Matthew, for the very reason that they had embodied their testimony in writing, were less important than the rest for the particular purpose of which he is speaking here — the illustration of the written " oracles " by matter orally handed down.
(3) John the Elder.
There is not a particle of evidence that the character and circumstances and work of "John the Elder" could have suggested some of the chief elements in the tradition regarding John the Apostle, which we are discussing. It is not by any means clear that he even resided in Asia, and there is no ground whatever for thinking that he was a man of com- manding personality and influence.
1 Cp. Harnack (ib.) who uses substantially the same argument. a Ap. Eus. H. E. ill. xxxix. 4. 3 E.g. by Keim, ib, p. 219.
John the Elder 169
Eusebius says that Papias had heard this John and Aristion, though he had not heard the Apostles, but this appears to be an inference on the part of Eusebius from the change to the present tense in the last clause of the sentence, in which Papias speaks of the sources of information which he had used. The construction of the sentence, however, plainly shews that Papias does not claim, there at all events, himself to have heard John the Elder and Aristion, though the different tense employed in their case seems to shew that they, but not the Apostles, were alive at the time referred to. Eusebius himself appears to be doubtful about his interpretation of the words, for he adds "At any rate (ryovv) he often refers to them" (Aristion and the Elder John) uby name, and quotes also their traditions in his book." As Eusebius felt a special interest in John the Elder, having suggested that he might be the author of the Apocalypse, we may safely conclude that, if Papias had spoken more definitely of his own connexion with him, or had recorded anything about him, Eusebius would have told us so. The fact, probably, was that Eusebius, being familiar with the descrip- tion of Papias as a hearer of John the Apostle, assumed, in order to explain this, that he must have been a hearer of some John. He saw also, that there was more ground for connecting him with John the Elder than with the Apostle, and he preferred this in order that the latter might not be made responsible for Papias' extravagant Millenarianism and other puerilities.
It should also be observed that there is nothing in Papias's language to shew that John the Elder was a man of special eminence. He is named only in company with Aristion and in no sense preferred over him1.
So far as Eusebius' account of Papias' work enables us to judge, the only points of resemblance between John the Elder and the traditional representation of John the Apostle, were (i) that the former, as well as Aristion, was known as
1 Ib. §§ 4, 7, 14. If I was inclined to use an argumentum ad hominem, I might point out to those who make so much of the order in which different persons are named in some other cases, that John the Elder is mentioned after Aristion in each instance.
John the Elder
a fjLaOrjTrjs TOV Kvpiov, though in their case this can have denoted only that they were followers of Jesus when He was on earth, not that they were of the number of the Twelve, and (2) that John the Elder, as also Aristion, would seem to have lived till near the end of the First Century, if not longer, since he seems to have been still alive when Papias had made enquiries about his teaching1. It is not, indeed, improbable that John the Elder may have been one of those whom Papias adduced as authorities for Millenarian doctrine ; and so far there may seem to be reason for connecting him with the composition of the Apocalypse. But, on the other hand, no saying or sentiment in the pages of Irenaeus or any other writer, which there is any ground for tracing to this John, and nothing that we are told about him, gives the impression that he was a man of the intellectual and moral and spiritual force required for exercising a commanding influence over others and creating a body of disciples, and which could have enabled him to inspire the production of the Apocalypse, — not to say of the Fourth Gospel and the First Johannine Epistle, with the thoughts and character of which his teaching and testimony had not, so far as we know, the slightest affinity.
There is one other notice which may seem to point to the presence of John the Elder in Asia. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, in the middle of the third century, when con- tending that the Apocalypse was not by John the Apostle but by some other John, mentions a report that there are two tombs in Ephesus, each said to be John's2. It is Dionysius' intention to suggest that one of these tombs might be that of the Apostle and Evangelist, the other that of the John of the Apocalypse. He does not, however, himself identify the latter with Papias' John the Elder. Afterwards Eusebius seeks to improve Dionysius' theory by doing so. But a story so vague and poorly supported, as this of the two tombs at Ephesus, can have no weight.
A word must be added as to the use of the title "the Elder" in the addresses of the Second and Third Epistles of St John.
1 This follows from the use of the present.
2 Ap. Eus. H. E. vn. xxv. 16.
The Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse 171
This may seem to indicate some association of ideas, after- wards lost, between the persons of the Elder and the Apostle who had the name of John. But it should be remembered that the title of Elder was not an uncommon one, and was one moreover which could be assumed even by an Apostle1.
(4) The contrast between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse,
The difficulty that was felt even in ancient times in supposing the Apocalypse to be by the author of the Fourth Gospel, has just come before us, and we must now notice the objection that in modern times has been founded on the contrast between the two works.
That the Apostle John was the author of the Apocalypse is, it is urged, attested by the evidence of Justin, which is earlier by twenty or thirty years than any which can be produced for his authorship of the Gospel. But, it is argued, if the Apocalypse is his the Gospel cannot be, owing to the widely different character of the two works2. This is a question of internal evidence, and all that I can here do is to make a few general remarks upon the subject. It is to be noted that a new trend of opinion has shewn itself of late as to the relation of the two compositions. We used to be told that they represented the two opposite poles of feeling and be- lief among early Christians, the one narrowly Jewish, the other universalistic and even more Pauline than St Paul. But more recently some critics who have denied that either was by the Apostle John, or even the result of his teaching and influence,
1 i Pet. v. i.
2 Some, while adhering to the belief that the Fourth Gospel was by the Apostle John, have held, or have suspected, that the Apocalypse was not. Bleek may be given as an instance. (See his Lectures on the Apoc. ch. 3, § 3, p. 12 iff. Eng. Trans.) Recently this position has been maintained by E. C. Selwyn, in The Christian Prophets, p. 11$ ff. The Tubingen School, on the other hand, while they asserted strongly that the Apocalypse could not be by the same writer as the Gospel, were inclined, as I have said, to regard the former as the work of the Apostle John. For their view I may refer to Hilgenfeld, Einleit., p. 406 and S. Davidson, Introd. I. p. 240 ff.
The Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse
have been impressed with many affinities between them, and have held that they proceeded from the same school1, or even that the same hand can be traced in them2. The view has also been propounded, and has found a good deal of favour, that the Apocalypse is of composite origin3; and in connexion with this there has been a disposition to revise the date (A.D. 68 — 70) to which it was in the middle part of the nineteenth century, and till a few years ago, commonly referred alike by many conservative critics and by those of an opposite tendency4. If it contains a variety of elements, the end of Domitian's reign, the time to which tradition assigns it, may be given as that when it was put forth in its present shape ; while at the same time marks of an earlier date in parts of the book can be suitably explained.
The subject, then, of the character and composition of the Apocalypse is evidently an intricate one. Any results that can be obtained with regard to it must be taken into account in judging of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, owing to the close association of the two works in tradition. But it seems more than doubtful whether, in the light of a fuller
1 Bousset, Die Offenb. Joh. pp. 50-1, 206-8 and Encycl. Bibl. i. p. 199 (17).
2 Harnack, Chron. I. 675, n. i.
3 Theories as to the composite character of the Apocalypse began to be put forward in 1882. A succinct account of them may be seen in Bousset, Die Off.
Joh. p. 127 ff.
4 To many writers who defended the Apostolic authorship of both works this date for the Apocalypse approved itself both because it seemed to agree with various indications in the book itself, and because it was thus possible to suppose that there had been a considerable interval between its composition and that of the Gospel, and so to explain more easily the differences between them. Thus Westcott writes, "The crisis of the Fall of Jerusalem explains the relation of the Apocalypse to the Gospel. In the Apocalypse the 'coming' of Christ was expected, and painted in figures; in the Gospel the 'coming' is interpreted" (Pro/eg, to Com. on St John, p. Ixxxvii.). Again, Salmon, "The opinion of many critics, orthodox as well as sceptical, now tends to reverse the doctrine of older writers which made the Apocalypse much the later book of the two, and to give it, on the contrary, ten, perhaps twenty years of greater antiquity than the Gospel." In the context Dr Salmon uses this conclusion to explain the dis- appearance of solecisms in the latter which abound in the former (Introd. pp. 219 -20). See also B. Weiss, Introd. II. p. 364. For the judgment of one whose point of view was different, see Hilgenfeld, Einleit. pp. 448 — 452.
As regards the return more recently to a later date and the reasons given for it, see Harnack, 1. c. p. 245, Weizsacker, Apost. Age, Eng. trans, n. p. 180 f., Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 295 — 302.
Qtiartodecimanism 173
enquiry, the comparison of the two will be felt to have that decisive effect in excluding the possibility of any connexion between them, which not a few have thought that it had.
( 5 ) Qua rtodecimanism.
In the differences regarding Paschal observance which occupied much attention during the latter part of the Second Century, the Asiatic Christians appealed to the example of the Apostle John as an authority for their own Quartodeciman practice. It is well known to all who are in any degree acquainted with the history of controversy on questions of New Testament criticism that this alleged practice of the Apostle has been urged as a reason for holding that he cannot have been the author of the Fourth Gospel. This contention cannot rightly be passed over here, and must now engage our attention. It is true that the Paschal Dispute in the early Church occupies a much less prominent place at present in discussions regarding the early history of Christianity and the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel than it did during the middle part of the last century. Nevertheless, the objection is still made1 that the representation of the order of events connected with the Passion in that Gospel could not have been given by one who himself kept the Christian Passover on the fourteenth of Nisan. Even if there were not this reason for paying attention to the history of Quartodecimanism, we might well be induced to do so by the interest and importance attaching to an enquiry into the origin and character of an institution belonging to a period in the life of the Early Church which is in many respects specially obscure2.
1 Even by some of those who deny that John the Apostle resided in Ephesus, e.g. Schmiedel in Encycl. Bibl. n. cols. 2552-3. See also Harnack, Chron. i. p. 670, n. i. He holds that there is something in the objection, though not so much as Baur, Hilgenfeld etc. thought. He refrains from going into the matter himself.
2 The two most important writings on the subject are Der Paschastreit, by A. Hilgenfeld (1860) and De Controversiis Paschalibus by E. Schiirer (1869), published also in German in Zeitschrift fur d. Hist. Theol. (1870), pp. 182 — 284. I shall refer to the German as the later and as shewing marks of revision. I turn to English writers on the subject. It has been treated by S. Davidson in
1 7 4 Qitartodecimanism
It may assist the reader in following my argument, if I first state three principal views which have been taken of the rationale of Quartodecimanism. I shall in doing so group together writers who in the main agree, and shall forbear for the most part from signalising differences that appear to be non-essential.
i. It has been held that Christians who observed the fourteenth of Nisan did so because Christ had eaten the Passover with His disciples on the day before He suffered, and as a commemoration of that farewell-meal. Bretschneider asserted that this was the ground on which the day was first kept, and that the institution was traced by the Asiatic Christians to John and another of the Apostles, and he pointed out that the statements of the Fourth Gospel were not in accord with this1. The suggestion thus thrown out was taken up by the critics of the Tubingen School. They combined it, however, with their larger theory of the rise and growth of the Christian Church. In the Paschal controversy which first comes before us in the latter half of the second century they saw a survival from the conflicts engendered by the wide- reaching and penetrating difference between the Jewish Christianity of the Twelve (including St John), and the
accordance with the principles of the Tubingen School in his Introd. to N. T. II. pp. 369—386, 2nd ed. 1882; also somewhat more fully and with more inde- pendence, though to much the same effect, by J. J. Tayler in the Character of the Fourth Gospel (1867), chh. 9 and 10.
Dr Salmon, writing from quite a different point of view, has devoted a lecture to it in his Introd. to N.T. (ist ed. 1885), ch. 15. He has not stated and ex- amined the evidence in much detail; but he seems to have taken on the whole what I believe to be the right view of it (see below, p. 176, n. i). More recently Dr James Drummond has published an elaborate essay on The Fourth Gospel and the Quartodecimans in the American Journal of Theology (July, 1897), pp. 601-57. But I fear this is not likely to be easily accessible to many English students. I think also that Dr Drummond has made the subject needlessly perplexing by encumbering his discussion of it to an unnecessary extent with secondary con- siderations, and especially by deferring the examination of the most important pieces of evidence to the end of his article.
It may be well to mention that Luthardt's St John the author of the Fourth Gospel contains a brief section on The Passover Controversy (Eng. trans, p. 154 ff.) based on Schiirer's treatise referred to above.
1 In his Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolarum Joannis Apostoli indole et origine (1820), pp. 109 — no, Bretschneider makes grave misstatements ; but it does not seem to be worth while to notice them at the present day.
Quartodecimanism 175
teaching of the Apostle Paul. They maintained that the opposition to Quartodecimanism was, originally at least, inspired by the conviction that the Law was fulfilled and abrogated in Christ ; and that the Fourth Gospel was written in the interests of the party who insisted on this truth. In it, so it was asserted, the older Synoptic tradition was remoulded so as to make it appear that the Last Supper had not been the true legal Passover, and that Christ Himself had been offered as the true Paschal Lamb1.
2. To combat this view a totally different explanation of the significance of Quartodecimanism was given, which has found wide acceptance. The usage, it was said, had nothing to do with Jewish feeling or prejudices ; on the contrary, it was itself directly founded upon the recognition that Christ is the true Paschal Lamb ; the fourteenth was kept in com- memoration of His death ; and thus, instead of contradicting, the observance was peculiarly in harmony with the narrative of the Gospel according to St John2.
3. It was maintained by some from an early period in the controversy that, while Quartodecimanism was a con- tinuation of Jewish custom in Churches where believers in Christ of Jewish nationality were especially numerous, it did not imply a widely different conception of Christianity from that held by other Christians. For Christian Jews, indeed, the observance of the Passover-day necessarily had a new meaning ; but they did not keep it specifically as the anni- versary either of the Institution of the Last Supper or of the Death of Christ. Rather it was a Commemoration of the Divine Redemption typified in the ancient Passover and
1 The Tubingen theory was first put forth by Schwegler in his Montanismus (1841), p. 191 ff., and Baur in TheoL Jahrb. for 1844, p. 638 f., etc. The best exposition of it is that in Hilgenfeld's Paschastreit. Renan adopts the same view of Quartodecimanism, IfEglise Chrctienne, p. 445 f.; Marc Aurele, p. 194 f.; but apparently he does not consider it necessarily inconsistent with the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel.
2 This view was urged more particularly by Weitzel, Die Christliche Pas- chafeier (1848) and Steiz, in Stud. u. Krit. (1856, 1857), and in Herzog's Real- Encycl. 2nd ed. xi. p. 27 ff. Lightfoot alludes to this view in Essays on Sup. ReL pp. 17, 245; Ap. Frs, I. p. 625, in a manner which might lead the reader to suppose that there was no other alternative to the Tubingen one.
1 7 6 Qiiartodecimanism
now accomplished in Christ, in which the thought of the Last Supper and of the Death on the Cross and the Resurrection were all included.
In connexion with the advocacy of this view the name of the great Biblical scholar and exegete Friedrich Bleek deserves to be specially mentioned1. More recently the treatise of Em. Schiirer, whose investigation of the subject was carried out in a thoroughly historical spirit, has given it powerful support and done much to commend it. To the present writer it seems to be proved.
There is on this view no inherent incompatibility between Ouartodeciman practice and the chronology of the Passion assumed in the Fourth Gospel. And accordingly the precise objection to the Johannine authorship of that Gospel which the Tubingen School founded on Quartodecimanism falls to the ground. Nevertheless it will appear that the Quarto- decimans whom we best know — those of the latter half of the second century and afterwards — did as a matter of fact con- tend that Jesus ate the Passover on the Hth ; and this is a point to which defenders of the authenticity of the Gospel accg to St John have commonly paid too little attention.
We must now proceed to examine the evidence; and it will be expedient, I think, to do so somewhat fully, because
1 See Bleek's Beitrcige zur Evangelien-Kritik (1846), pp. 38 f. and 156—166; also Introd. to N.T. §§ 74, 75, Eng. Trans, pp. 204—210. Bleek has gone into the question much more fully than any of the other writers mentioned by Schiirer, pp. 185-6, unless it be van Leeuwen, whose essay I have not had an opportunity of consulting. I do not think I have misrepresented Schiirer in classing him with Bleek in spite of the distinction he makes, p. 275, and more clearly in the Latin form of his treatise. He appears to me to have misapprehended somewhat Bleek's position.
Lulhardt 1. c. follows Schiirer; so does Ezra Abbot, Fourth Gospel, p. 6; Zahn, Kan. I. pp. 179 — 192. Drummond I.e. arrives at the same conclusions in the main; and Salmon I.e. likewise takes to some extent the same view. For the chief point on which Drummond differs from Schiirer, see below, p. 186, n. i.
I have passed over in the above classification of views those apologists who virtually accepted the account of the meaning of Quartodecimanism given by the Tubingen School, but argued that it had no bearing on the authenticity of St John's Gospel because there was no discrepancy between that Gospel and the Synoptics in regard to the days of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. Few will be prepared to adopt this position now. Students at the present time are most likely to meet with it in Schafi's Church History, Div. I. § 62.
The letter of Poly crates to Victor 177
it has been comparatively little brought to the notice of the majority of English students. Let us turn first to the quotation which Eusebius makes from the letter addressed by Polycrates, the elderly Bishop of Ephesus, to Victor and the Church of the Romans1. "We therefore," he says, " keep the day without tampering with it neither adding to it nor taking from it (/ /jLtjre a<l)aipnv[j,€voi)" He then enumerates some of the saintly dead from apostolic times onward in whose footsteps they are walking. " These all," he proceeds, " observed the day of the fourteenth of the Passover according to the Gospel, going beyond in no respect (/jLrjBev TrapeK^alvovre^), but follow- ing according to the rule of the faith." Seven of his own kinsmen, he adds, had been bishops, and " they all kept the day when the people (6 Xao?, the Jews) removed the leaven." He has, moreover, conversed with brethren from all parts of the world and considered every passage of Scripture that bears on the subject (iraa-av ayiav ypa^rjv Sie\r)\v8(0s). Therefore he is not to be frightened by threatening language, "for greater men than I have said that 'we ought to obey God rather than men.' "
The general sense seems plain. He maintains that the observance of the fourteenth day, to which he and the portion of the Church to which he belongs confine themselves, is of Divine, and all else — alike preparatory fasts of more or fewer days' duration and the prolongation of the fast to the following Sunday — is of human institution. He must, then, have felt that there was force still in the commandment of the Law, as regards the day to be kept. It could not be maintained that in the Gospel, taken by itself, the observance of the fourteenth of Nisan was prescribed rather than, for instance, that of the sixteenth or seventeenth, one or other of which (according to the view of the chronological order of events adopted) would be the anniversary of the Resurrection, or than that of both, or of a period embracing both. When he asserts that it is " according to the Gospel," he must mean that the Gospel in some way confirms the ancient ordinance, so far at least as the day is concerned, which is all that is in question. In what
1 Ap. Eus. H. E. v. 24.
S. G. 12
178 The letter of Poly crates to 1/ictor
way he supposed it to do this does not appear from the passage before us. Those to whom he wrote would no doubt have caught his meaning at once, or the context if we had more of it might have made it plain. On the ground of other evidence it may presently seem probable to us that, believing Christ to have partaken of the Passover at the legal Jewish time, he claimed His example as sanctioning the practice he was defending.
He also says that this observance is "according to the rule of the faith." These words again point most probably to the reverence which he considered was still due to the Old Testa- ment precept. We may most naturally imagine that he has in view Gnostic depreciation of the Old Testament, such for instance as that of Marcion, by whom those expressions which he left standing in his Gospel respecting Christ's celebration of the Passover with His disciples were explained as referring solely to the new rite which He instituted, in order that the Saviour might not seem in any way to countenance the Law. If so, the allusion to "the rule of the faith " tends to support the explanation just now mentioned of the words " according to the Gospel1."
But whatever may be doubtful in these interpretations we have at least gathered that the practice of the Quartodecimans involved a reference to the ancient Law. Even by themselves the celebration of the Christian Passover on the fourteenth was viewed as a continuation of the Jewish Passover ; and it is rendered the more probable that this is the true historical account of its origin. Old associations could have, and we see reason to think largely had, determined the observance of the day, though Christian associations had been grafted upon it. It had not been expressly, as it were, reconsecrated to com- memorate a particular moment in the Gospel history, however great. To have learned this will be the clue to the removal of more than one difficulty.
Into the broader question of the use of the Old Testament in the early Church it is not our business to enter, but in passing I may remark that Anti-quartodecimans, too, could
1 See Epiph. Panar. XLII. § 61, and cp. on the point Hilgenfeld, Paschastreit, pp. 202-4.
Hippolytus on the Quart odecimans 179
apply the Mosaic Law in support of their own practice ; an instance of this will present itself. When, therefore, Polycrates says that he is not afraid because "he has gone through every Scripture," he probably means that he is prepared to meet arguments that may be urged against him from the whole range of Scripture, as well as to adduce therefrom more convincing ones on his own side.
We will defer noticing the quotations in Eusebius from a letter written to Victor by Irenaeus near the same time, and will take next three fragments, which have been preserved to us in the Paschal Chronicle, from lost treatises on the Paschal question. In this work, composed A.D. 63O1, or soon after, the writer — after he has demonstrated from a passage of Peter of Alexandria that till the reign of Vespasian the Jews had employed right principles in fixing the day, though they had not always done so since, — lays down the proposition that Christ did not, in the year in which He suffered, eat the paschal lamb according to the Jewish Law, being Himself the true paschal lamb. This, he says, is evident both from the Gospels and the writings of the Fathers. According to the Gospels, the Jews were looking forward to eat the Pass- over when Jesus was seized and tried, so that He could not have partaken of the Paschal lamb if they kept to the true time, as, he maintains, they did in that age. Of testimony to the same effect by holy teachers of the Church there is, he declares, abundance, and by way of example he proceeds to quote passages from three early writers2, viz. Hippolytus, Apollinaris, and Clement of Alexandria. These all bear on the question of Quartodecimanism, though they are not quoted on that account in the Paschal Chronicle. We will take them in the order in which they are there cited, though it is not the chronological one.
Hippolytus's meaning is the more certain because there is no doubt as to the opinions which he held on the points in dispute. The first passage quoted is taken from his Com- pendium against all Heresies. " I perceive, therefore," he says, "that the matter is one of contentiousness, for he" (the writer,
1 See art. by Salmon, Diet, of Chr. Bio. I. p. 510.
2 pp. 12 — 15 in Dindorfs edn.
12 2
i8o The fragment of Apollinaris
no doubt, to whose treatise he is replying) " speaks thus : 1 Christ kept the Passover then on the day and suffered, wherefore I also ought so to do as the Lord did.' " " But," continues Hippolytus, "he has gone astray through not knowing that at the season at which Christ suffered he did not eat the legal passover. For he was the Passover that was foretold and perfected on the appointed day."
It is manifest from this extract that some Quartodecimans at all events held that Christ ate the Passover on the fourteenth of Nisan and was crucified on the fifteenth ; and that they appealed to His example as an authority for themselves. Another fragment is added from a special treatise by Hippo- lytus on the Paschal question. This need not, however, now detain us. But it will be well to compare the brief section on Quartodecimanism in his extant treatise on Heresies1. "Other persons," he there writes, " who are of contentious nature, in point of knowledge uninstructed, and in disposition quarrel- some, maintain that we ought to keep the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month, according to the command- ment of the Law, on whatsoever day of the week it may fall." His reply is that the commandment was given to the Jews, who were destined to be the destroyers of the true passover, which was to be transferred to the Gentiles and to be under- stood by faith, and not any longer observed in the letter ; and further that those who thus kept a single precept of the Law rendered themselves liable to all its demands according to the principle laid down by St Paul. He adds that the persons referred to accept in all other respects the doctrine delivered by the Apostles to the Church.
We turn to the language attributed in the Paschal Chronicle to Apollinaris. " In his treatise on the Passover," it is said, "he taught similarly, speaking thus: — 'There are, therefore, those who are contentious about these matters from ignorance, a defect which may be pardoned ; for ignorance is not matter for accusation, but requires instruction. And they say, that on the fourteenth the Lord ate the lamb with the disciples, and himself suffered on the great day of unleavened bread, and they argue that Matthew so speaks as they have supposed ;
1 Refut. viii. 1 8.
Clement on Qitartodecimanism 181
wherefore their opinion is out of harmony with the Law, and the Gospels according to them appear to be at variance.' " And again, " the fourteenth is the true passover of the Lord, the great sacrifice, the servant of God in place of the lamb, who was bound, who bound the strong man, whose holy side was pierced, who poured out from his side the two cleansing elements water and blood, who was buried on the day of the passover, when the stone was placed upon the tomb." Different views have been taken of the practical intention of this language. We should have been glad if the position of Apollinaris in regard to the Paschal question had been defined for us by some contemporary, or nearly contemporary, statement. We have not even any reference older than that of the Paschal Chronicle to shew that he took any part in its discussion. But it would be probable that he must have intervened in it, even if we had not the fragments which have been handed down as his. For we know that a controversy on the subject broke out in Laodicea, close to his own city Hierapolis, about the time of his episcopate. Melito, Bishop of Sardis, was led thereby to write his two treatises on the Passover1. The latter was unquestionably a Quartodeciman2. Some have held that Apollinaris, too, was on this side. We will consider this point more fully later on ; for the moment we will observe only that the similarity between his line of thought and that in the passages of Hippolytus would suggest that they are both arguing against the same opinions.
A quotation follows from a work of Clement of Alexandria on the Passover. This is no doubt the work on that subject which Eusebius mentions and which, as he tells us, was called forth, according to the statement of Clement himself, by the writings of Melito3. In the passage preserved in the Paschal Chronicle, Clement asserts that the question "where wilt thou that we prepare ? ", which the disciples asked, referred to the TrpoeroLfjiaa-la, the " preparation," especially the consecra- tion of the unleavened cakes ; that is to say, it did not imply that the hour for eating the passover was already at hand;
1 See Euseb. H. E. IV. xxvi. 3.
2 See allusion by Polycrates, ap. Eus. H. E. v. xxiv. 5, 6.
3 Eus. H. E. IV. xxvi. 4.
1 82 Origen on Quart odecimanism
ihe feet-washing described by John was a kind of preparation. Christ was in point of fact crucified on the fourteenth, "being himself the Passover auspiciously sacrificed " by the Jews. '• By this fitting together of the days all the Scriptures are in harmony, and the Gospels are in accord, and the Resurrection too bears witness to the same effect, for he rose on the third day, which was the first day of the weeks of harvest, the day on which it was appointed by the Law that the priest should offer the sheaf1." It is reasonable to infer from this passage that Melito the Quartodeciman, whose treatise had provoked Clement to write, had argued that Christ partook of the Passover on the fourteenth and was crucified on the fifteenth, as those did whom Apollinaris and Hippolytus have in view.
We pass on to the utterances of two very eminent men, of a somewhat later time. They, too, are Anti-quartodecimans and they deal with the same point, but in a different manner from the foregoing, and also each differently from the other, which is of interest in respect to the history of exegesis. Origen in commenting on Mt. xxvi. 17, instead of explaining away the reference to the preparation for the Passover, as Clement does, shews plainly that he believes that Jesus ate it on the fourteenth of Nisan. He proceeds : — " According to these things perchance one of the unskilful, falling into Ebion- ism, will, on the ground that Jesus celebrated the passover in the body in the Jewish manner, demand the observance in like manner of the first day of unleavened bread and the passover, saying, ' that it is fitting for us as imitators of Christ to do as he did ' ; not considering that Jesus, when the fulness of time had come and he had been sent, was made of a woman, was made under the Law, not that he might leave those under the Law who were under it, but that he might lead them forth from it. If then he came in order to lead those forth who were under the Law, how much more unfitting is it that those
/Tfl rS>v T)/j.€pu>v TT) aKpifleia cu ypa<f>al iraffai ffvfjLtpwvovffi Kal ra cvayy^Xia tirifj.apTvpf'i dt Kal 77 av6.ffra.ffir TJ) yovv rpirfi avtffrri rjn^pa...^ 17 Kal TO dpdyna v€vofj.o6^TijTO irpoffevfyKelv rbv Itpta.
This is the instance referred to above, p. 179, of an appeal to the Mosaic Law on the Anti-quartodeciman side.
Eusebius on Quartodecimanism 183
should come within the sphere of the Law, who before had been outside its pale1."
Eusebius in a treatise on the Passover written subse- quently to the Council of Nicaea, of which a portion has been preserved2, argues with those who were reluctant to obey the decree of the Council concerning uniformity in the time of keeping Easter. Now it cannot, indeed, be assumed that such persons were Quartodecimans. A new point had arisen since the days of the first Paschal controversy, namely, the question whether Christians were right in depending upon the proclamation of the Paschal Moon by Jewish authority, or should not rather ascertain it by their own calculations. Before the time of the Council of Nicaea the Churches of Rome and Alexandria and (doubtless under their influence) those of the West generally and Asia Minor had adopted systems for determining the time, which they believed to be more trustworthy than the methods employed by the Jews, on whose calculations the Churches of Northern Syria and the more distant East still, for the most part, depended3. Quartodecimanism cannot have dropped out of sight altogether, but it would seem that the other question just referred to was the one most present to the mind of the Council. Con- sequently in any merely general reference to its decree and the duty of conformity thereto, there might be room for doubt as to what precisely is in the mind of the writer.
1 Dr Drummond seems to me to misinterpret this remark when he writes: — "the people who are corrected fall into Ebionism, a reproach which was not brought against the Quartodecimans " (1. c., p. 638). Surely Origen only means that to make so much of a commandment of the Law is virtually to fall into Ebionism. Further Dr Drummond is clearly not justified in saying with regard to this passage : — "there is no allusion to the peculiarity of the Quartodecimans. The question turns not on the day of observance but on the manner of observance."
2 See De Paschate, §§ 8—12 ap. Mai, Patrum Nova Bibliotheca, IV. pp. 214 — 6.
3 M. Duchesne drew attention to the evidence for this in the Revue des Questions Historiques, vol. xxvm. 1880. He seems to me, however, to go too far when he maintains that this was the only Paschal question which occupied the Council of Nicaea, Quartodecimanism having ceased to be important. He has overlooked the passage of Eusebius now to be considered, as well as other evidence that both were included, and has failed to recognise the natural connexion between the two points. I must add that M. Duchesne's treatment of the subject of Quartodecimanism in this paper is unsatisfactory, but it is not his main purpose to deal with it.
184 Eusebius on Quart odecimanism
It is evident, however, that Eusebius in the passage which I am about to quote has the scruples of Quartodecimans mainly in view. He notices the appeal to the Saviour's own act which, more than once before, we have found them making. Someone, he observes, may say that it is written, " on the first day of the unleavened bread the disciples came and said, Where wilt thou that we prepare the Passover for thee to eat ? and he sent them to a certain man and commanded them to say, I keep the Passover at thy house." Now there would be no point in insistence on this by one who did not keep the fourteenth day, but who simply took the day which the Jews declared to be the fourteenth as the starting-point from which to reckon.
But let us also note Eusebius' reply, (i) He urges that this statement taken from the Gospels does not convey a commandment, but is the account of an occurrence at the time of Our Saviour's Passion ; and that it is one thing to give a narrative of what happened in the past, quite a different one to legislate for after times ; (2) he accepts like Origen the view suggested by the Synoptic account, that Christ did eat the Passover at the legal time, but he contends that He did not eat it at the same time as the Jews (more particularly the Chief Priests and the Scribes) in that year did, for that they deferred eating it in order that they might accomplish His death. The Quartodecimans, therefore, — this seems to be the argument — do not really follow His example, even though they intend to do so, for they celebrate the Passover at the same time as the Jews, whose reckoning is no longer to be trusted. (3) He also in the context dwells much on the thought that Christians in a sense celebrate the Passover all through the year on every Lord's day ; and though he does not expressly apply this consideration to the question of Quartodecimanism, it is plainly not unconnected therewith.
Eusebius was writing shortly after the Council of Nicaea. From this time forward the position of those who still adhered to Quartodecimanism became more and more sectarian. As regards the evidence which comes to us from the period during which it was dying out, we need only observe that in part, like the interesting fragment of a letter of Athanasius to
The position of Apollinaris 185
Epiphanius1, it confirms the impression which the earlier evidence is fitted to produce, as to what the points in dispute had been, and that in so far as it does not, like some state- ments in Epiphanius's own section on the subject in his work on Heresies2, it is not such as to render a revision of that impression necessary.
Now those who have maintained that the essence of the Quartodeciman observance was the keeping of the anniversary of the Death of Christ have, of course, been compelled to account in some way for the language which we have been reviewing. They have done so by assuming that it was directed not against the general body of Quartodecimans, that i- the mass of Asiatic Churchmen, but against a more or less limited number of persons who were regarded as heretical. It is suggested that the eager discussions which, about A.D. I053, arose in Laodicea in regard to the passover were not between Quartodecimans and Anti-quartodecimans, but between two parties of Quartodecimans, who took different views of the meaning of the practice prevailing amongst them all ; and that Apollinaris and Melito were engaged in the same cause, that is to say, in the support of the established view of the Asiatic Churches4.
Arguments of doubtful validity seem to be advanced both to shew that Apollinaris was, and that he was not, a Quarto- deciman. On the one hand it has been urged that, if he had been a Quartodeciman, Polycrates must have mentioned so distinguished a man in his list of those who had followed the usage which he is defending. But he is evidently naming only the departed, and Apollinaris may, for aught we know, have been still alive. On the other hand, it is contended that Polycrates speaks of Quartodeciman custom as universal in the province of Asia, and that one who did not conform to it could not have attained to or occupied an important bishopric there. But such a general statement as that which Polycrates
1 Given in the Paschal Chronicle, ed. Dind. p. 9.
2 Panar. eo. On the mixture of incongruous opinions which Epiphanius makes, see Hilgenfeld, I.e. p. 372 ff., and Schurer, I.e. p. 249 f.
3 See Waddington, Pastes Asiat. p. 126.
4 E.g. by Steitz in Herzog's R. E. XI. pp. 276-7; also in Stud. it. Krit. 1856, p. 776 ff. and 1857, p. 764 ff.
1 86 Quartodecimans appealed
makes cannot be held to exclude the possibility of all ex- ceptions, especially at Hierapolis and Laodicea, which were near the inland border of the province. It is clearly con- ceivable, too, that when Apollinaris became bishop, about A.I). 170 or earlier, divergence on the point in question may have been more possible than twenty years later when Poly- crates was writing. The feeling of the region as a whole may have asserted itself strongly, perhaps as a result of the disputes in that "district. It has, however, been further urged by Dr Drummond that Apollinaris " unless he were a singu- larly conceited and ill-tempered man " could not have attributed the opinions which he is combating, as he does, to ignorance, if they were those of "all his brother bishops, including men of the greatest learning and distinction." But the force of this objection is a good deal weakened when it is recognised that he may have been writing while controversy on the subject was still fresh, and many had not as yet taken part in it. Moreover, it would be natural that he should have persons in his own Church and neighbourhood chiefly before his mind's eye, and should describe them without intending to reflect upon venerated men at a distance, who, moreover, even if they followed the same practice as opponents on the spot, may not so far have advocated it on the same grounds. That those, however, whom Apollinaris censures were Quartodeci- mans there can be no question. Not only is their argument one which we find repeatedly advanced on the Quartodeciman side, but it is one which Anti-quartodecimans could not have urged. Now it is surely improbable that Apollinaris would have expressed himself so strongly about a mere difference between himself and a section of Quartodecimans as to the reason to be given for a practice common both to himself and them1.
1 Drummond, ib. p. 654, differs from Schiirer chiefly in supposing Apollinaris to have been a Quartodeciman. He suggests that not only were diverse views of the Evangelical Chronology held among Anti-quartodecimans, hut also among Quartodecimans. But it should be remembered that while there is distinct evidence of this variety among the former, there is none such in regard to the latter.
It should be mentioned that Funk also (in Krause's Real-Encycl. d. Christl. Alterthiimer I. p. 488 f. ) is inclined to regard Apollinaris as a Quartodeciman, while he agrees with Schiirer in other respects.
to the example of Christ 187
We turn to the passages from Hippolytus. It is contended that he could not have classed opinions, which were those of the whole Church of Asia, among heresies, or referred to those who held them as "certain others." But he would not distinguish with care between heretics and schismatics ; and the Church of Rome unquestionably reckoned the Asiatics as schismatics. The phrase "certain others" is a formula of enumeration ; he uses it twice again in introducing succeeding classes of heretics, and there is no reason to think that he would refrain from it because of its depreciatory sound. We may, also, make a similar observation to that which we have made in considering the expressions of Apollinaris. The Quartodecimans with whom he had been himself brought into contact, in this case those who had made their way into the West, would be principally present to his thoughts. It is probable, too, that many Quartodecimans were content to defend their own practice simply as the traditional custom of their Church1, and that only some used arguments which, if they were admitted to be sound, would have proved the rest of the Church to be in the wrong. Hippolytus may be alluding chiefly to men of this last type. But this is not to say that such persons had adopted a view of the significance of the observance of the fourteenth day clearly distinct from, and even inconsistent with, the belief of Quartodecimans generally. Of this there is not a trace in the language of Hippolytus. On the contrary his description in the Refuta- tio — "persons who maintain that we ought to keep the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month according to the com- mandment of the Law, on whatsoever day of the week it may fall " — obviously fits all Quartodecimans as such ; and he expressly says that, save on this one point, those of whom he speaks are in full accord with the Church.
Eusebius, again, though he does not imply that all Quarto- decimans used the argument which he refutes, gives no hint that this view of the practice was confined to a sect amongst them.
It would, indeed, have been a strange thing that a differ- ence simply in the interpretation put upon the observance of 1 Cp. Eus. H. E. v. xxiii. i ; xxiv. 16.
1 88 The fourteenth was not kept as the day of
the fourteenth day of the month should have been the basis of a formal separation among those who agreed in practice, and that the division should have been maintained in spite of the fact that war was raging in regard to the continuance of the practice itself. Further it would be a curious fatality that all the reasoning relating to Ouartodecimanism which has come down to us from those opposed to it — or (shall we say) all with the doubtful exception of the fragments of Apolli- naris — should in reality have been aimed at the position not of Quartodecimans generally, with whom nevertheless the greater part of the Church was at issue, but only of a compa- ratively unimportant portion of them. Surely we may pronounce this to be incredible, and we must conclude that, when controversy arose on the subject of Quartodecimanism, the supposed example of Christ in Himself eating the Passover furnished an argument which was commonly used on the Quartodeciman side ; and this could not have been the case, if the fourteenth had been generally understood by them to be the anniversary of the Death of Christ.
The strength of the opinion that this last was the meaning of the Quartodeciman observance has lain not in any evidence that could be adduced, but in the idea that, if they did not regard the fourteenth as the Day of the Crucifixion, they must have broken their fast and returned to their ordinary occupations during the very hours which corresponded to those when the Lord was passing through all His last sufferings. But this feeling as to the successive days is due to the associa- tions which long custom has created. The imagination resists the demand made of it to conceive entirely different habits of thought. No doubt anniversaries of great events of the Gospel history might have been kept from the first, but it is evident that they were not, from the silence of the New Testament, and from the early history considered as a whole of that system of commemorative days which did in time arise, and we can conjecture causes why they should not have been. One lay in the difficulty of adjusting the lunar to the solar years ; another in the confusion connected with the various reckonings common in the different regions through which Jews and Christians were scattered. It is, moreover, hard to
the Death of Christ, or of the Last Supper 189
understand how the fourteenth, if it had been observed as the anniversary, in the strict sense of the term, of the Death of Christ, could have been set aside by the greater part, and eventually by the whole, of the Church, in favour of a Friday which simply fell near the Passover-day. Further, if the ob- servance of the 1 4th had been kept up for this reason from Apostolic times we should not have had the real or apparent discrepancy between the accounts of the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel in regard to the Day of Crucifixion. To explain this some uncertainty, or different impressions, as to the exact chronology, in the minds of Christians generally and of the authors of the records on the one part or the other, must be assumed, such as there could not have been if par- ticular days of the year had been kept throughout in memory of the historical facts.
The supposition that the fourteenth of Nisan was kept by Christians as the day of the Lord's Death is encumbered with another difficulty. The more expressly it was so regarded, the more certainly ought another day to have been equally honoured as that of His Resurrection; — the third day after the other would have been most natural. But it is plain from Polycrates's own words and from the language of opponents, that the Quartodecimans had not such another day. It would be far more in accordance with true Christian instincts that the great acts in the Redemption through Christ should be recalled together on the day sacred to the memory of a great redemption in the past which typified, and contained the promise of, that still greater one, than that the Passion of Christ should be singled out and His Triumph be passed over, or receive only subordinate recognition.
It is equally a mistake to suppose that the fourteenth was kept as the anniversary of the Last Supper and of the institu- tion of the Eucharist at it. The institution of the Eucharist pointed forward, and its repeated celebration ever pointed back, to the Death and Resurrection of Christ, from which it derived all its meaning and efficacy. These could not but be the chief objects of thought. It is, moreover, clear that, as in the last case, if the day observed had been regarded primarily as the commemoration of one act in the Saviour's Passion on
1 90 Christians could observe the Passover
the day of the year on which it happened, the neighbouring days, which were the anniversaries of other great acts, could not have been ignored; and yet they were so by the Quarto- decimans. It may at all events be taken as certain that they did not receive any comparable honour1. It should, also, be carefully observed that the appeal to the Gospel history, which we have found Quartodecimans making, rested, not on the belief that on the fourteenth Jesus gave His dying command, ' This do in remembrance of Me/ but that He ate the Passover at the proper legal time.
Whether they were right in this particular or not, they were at least so far right as regards the example of Christ in general, that He did not lead His disciples by word or deed to throw aside the observance of the Mosaic Law abruptly. And the early believers who were of Jewish race, as most were, obeyed its ceremonial, as well as its moral, precepts more or less faithfully. To an institution so central in that ancient religion, which they still acknowledged to be Divine, and so endeared to every Jew by personal and social as well as national ties, they would be specially attached. When other customs were relinquished this would be preserved, and the more naturally so because it shadowed forth hopes which found their fulfilment in Christ. But this usage, in spite of its Jewish character, does not appear to have come into question in connexion with the efforts of the Judaizers and the vindica- tion of Gentile liberty. It is unreasonable to suppose that St Paul has it in his mind and intends to condemn it when he writes : — " let no man judge you... in respect of a fast or a new moon, or a sabbath day2." It was one thing to make much of
1 Adherents both of this and of the last-named view of Quartodecimanism have assumed that the Quartodecimans kept other days besides the fourteenth ; — in the former case a commemoration of the Resurrection ; in the latter, one of the Death, another of the Resurrection (see Hilgenfeld, 1. c., pp. 19, 31, 47, 77). But this was mere assumption, and, indeed, contrary to the evidence. Hilgenfeld saw this (1. c. 88, 310), but apparently he did not realise how damaging the admission was to the theory which he clung to.
2 Hilgenfeld (1. c., p. i7off.) implies that these words were directed against the observance of the Jewish Passover-day as well as against that of other Jewish rites. This is as little warranted as the hypothesis of Weitzel, against whom he is arguing, that the custom of keeping the fourteenth of Nisan as a Christian festival is to be traced to St Paul.
without Judaizing 191
observances, especially a multiplicity of them, which had not, and could not have, a Christian signification, quite another to celebrate the Passover with a new Christian intention. Doubt- less he would have resisted the attempt to impose this, too, as a yoke upon the Gentiles. But it is difficult to see how it could have come before him in this way. For either the Jewish Christians would have excluded Gentile Christians from the Paschal Feast, on the ground that they were un- circumcised, in which case Circumcision and not the Passover would have been the cause of offence ; or if, on the other hand, the Jewish Christians pressed their Gentile brethren to join in their own paschal celebration, without making circum- cision a test, this would have filled the Apostle with joy. Moreover, to represent the abstract principle of the indifference of external observances as of the essence of St Paul's teaching, is very misleading. It was upon their indifference — or rather their harmfulness — in so far as they formed a barrier to the union of Jews and Gentiles, or ivere devoid of spiritual meaning, that he insisted. As for himself, we may believe that he kept the Passover1 and that he valued it, because it spoke so plainly of that redeeming Will and Power which formed the great theme of his preaching.
When controversy breaks out on the subject of Quarto- decimanism its antagonists bring to light no important difference of faith between its adherents and themselves. The only point raised which is in any degree doctrinal is that of the amount of deference due to the Law in fixing the day of observance. Hippolytus and Origen contend that it shews undue attention to the letter to feel- bound by the ancient ordinance in a matter of this kind. The former throws in an allusion to the Jews, which suggests that to many in his day the consideration, that in following the Anti-quartodeciman custom they would avoid keeping the same day as the Jews of their own time did, would be a strong recommendation. Apollinaris and Clement, on the other hand, argue that if a broad view of the institution is taken, the Anti-quartodecimans more truly observe the Law than their opponents. While Eusebius takes up the position
1 It is natural to take i Cor. v. 8 as implying this.
1 92 Paschal observance at Rome
that, whereas Christ and His disciples observed the right day of the Passover, the Jewish chief priests and scribes on that occasion did not, and that the Jews have gone wrong since, so that it was a mistake to trust their calculations.
More obscurity hangs over the early history of the Paschal observances of the Churches that were not Quartodeciman, even than over such as were. But here also there is nothing in the facts, so far as they can be ascertained, which favours the view that the diversity of practice had its roots in an important doctrinal difference. At the time when Victor attacked the Asiatic Christians, both the Church of Rome and the Church generally had a well-established custom of keeping a great annual commemoration at a time correspond- ing approximately to that of the Jewish Passover. It is only in regard to the precise day to be observed that there is any difference which is regarded as important. There can, more- over, be no doubt as to the place which the Christian Passover held in the whole Church when, little more than a century later, the settlement of differences as to the time of observance was taken in hand at the Council of Nicaea. It is scarcely conceivable that the Paschal observances, which prevailed in the third century in Churches opposed to Quartodecimanism, could have been introduced after once the controversy had begun. There is also evidence in Irenaeus's language to Victor that such an annual celebration was then general, and that it had been so at least for a generation. He draws a moral from a point connected with it about which passions had been aroused, — the length of the preliminary fast. "As to this," he says, "there has been and is great variety of usage. And yet those times before us were at peace, and so are we as to this matter, and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith1."
How, then, did that modified Paschal observance arise which was so adjusted as not to conflict with the regular weekly commemoration of the Crucifixion and Resurrection ? Another part of the same letter of Irenaeus furnishes a hint as to what had happened in one Church — that of Rome itself. There was a greater contrast, he tells Victor, between the
1 Ap. Eus. H. E. v. xxiv. 13.
Modified Paschal observance 193
practice of those who had presided over the Church of Rome before Soter1, and that of Christians from some other dioceses, who came to Rome in their day, than that which now divided Victor himself from the Asiatics. Then it was a case of "observance" or (total) " non-observance2." He plainly implies that it is this no longer, and that the change took place in the time of Soter. We must suppose, then, that the Christian Paschal commemoration had seemed to the Church of Rome to be such a godly custom that in Soter's Episcopate it had adopted the institution, though in a modified form, in which the associations that had already gathered about Friday and Sunday were respected. The curious word used by Polycrates may well be taken as a depreciatory allusion to this adaptation. " We," he writes, " keep the day dppa&iovp- •yrjTov" We have not, he would say, like you, thought we could treat the solemnly-appointed day freely, manipulating the ancient ordinance according to our own fancy.
According to Eusebius the use, which we have just been considering in connexion with the Church of Rome, prevailed throughout the whole world, saving in the province of Asia, at the time of the outbreak of the controversy in the last decade of the second century. There is, perhaps, some rhetorical exaggeration here. But he states also expressly that the Churches of Palestine, Mesopotamia, Pontus and Gaul, and the Church of Corinth, as well as many others, made formal declarations that such was their practice3 ; and it comes out incidentally that Alexandria had the same custom4. Apostolical authority was claimed on this side no less than on that of the Quartodecimans. In particular as regards the synodical letter of the Churches of Palestine, which lay before him, Eusebius says that therein they " distinctly stated many things concerning the tradition of the Passover which had come down to them by succession from the Apostles5." This
1 He became Bishop circ. A.D. 166.
2 Eus. H, E. V. xxiv. 14 avrol /ATJ Typouvres elp-qvevov rots airb T&V irapoiKiuv , ev ah errjpeiTo, epxo/J.tvois TT/JOS O.VTOVS' Kal rot fj.a\\ov evavrlov -f\v r6 T-rjpeiv rots /J.T)
3 Ib. xxiii. 4 Ib. xxv.
5 Ib. irepl TTJS KaT€\ffovffr]s ei's at/Tobs e/c 5ia5ox^ TWV a.TroaT6\uj> irepi rov Traced 7rapa56«rews irXeiffra SiaX^dres.
S. G. 13
i94 Modified Paschal observance
may have included their method of calculating the Paschal Moon, as well as their practice of not breaking the fast till the Sunday ; but the latter was at this early time the chief point in dispute. We can hardly suppose that the usage which, at the end of the second century, these Churches defended had remained strictly unaltered since the Apostolic Age. It has too much the appearance of being the resultant of an interaction of different influences, which must have needed time to work. But the claim in question shews at least that no marked change had taken place in those Churches, so far as could be remembered, or was known.
Even apart from this indication, it would be improbable that a yearly commemoration at the Paschal season, and under the name of Passover1, should have been so widespread before the end of the second century, if it had been introduced in most Churches so late as it would seem to have been in Rome. The facts can best be explained by supposing that the observance of the ancient festival, although in a new spirit, had retained its hold from the first in many places besides Asia upon the converts from Judaism and upon others through their influence; but that from various circumstances the custom had not been able to resist modification to the extent it did there, in particular such a modification as would bring it into conformity with the weekly round of Christian fast and festival2. It may therefore have been imported into Rome in
1 As examples of the use of pascha at the end of the second century, among non-Quartodecimans, as the name of the Christian festival it will suffice to adduce (i) the words given p. 193, n. 5 in which Eusebius seems to be quoting from the letter of the Palestinian bishops; (2) the fact that Hippolytus wrote an a7r63et£ts Xpbvwif TOU irdaxa (see the enumeration of his works on his chair, ap. Lightfoot, Ap. Frs Pt i, n. p. 325): this he assuredly would not have done unless it had been practically required for Christian purposes, comp. the description of it, Eus. H. E. VI. xxii. i ; (3) the case of the Christian wife who has a heathen husband, as pictured by Tertullian, Ad Uxor. II. 4 "quis denique sollennibus Paschae abnoctantem securus sustinebit?" Cp. also De Corona, c. 3. (4) The following references may, also, be given to writings belonging to the middle part of the third century. Origen contr. Cels. vm. 11 init. Cyprian, Ep. 75, 6. Dionys. Alex. ap. Eus. H. E. vn. 20.
2 For the early growth of the practice of observing "the Lord's Day," the first day of the week, see i Cor. xvi. 2; Acts xx. 7; Apoc. i. 10; Pliny, Ep. 96 ("stato die"); Didache 14; Justin M. Apol. I. 67; for fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, Didache, 8.
Qnartodecimanism and the Fourth Gospel 195
the new form. If so this would not be the only instance in which Rome has not led, but followed, other Churches in ceremonial, as also in confessional, development At the same time the example of Rome may well have encouraged some other Churches to adopt the accommodation in regard to the day of the festival, or the yearly festival itself in its accommodated form. Much here must necessarily be matter of conjecture. But at least we may say that the links of a common name and season (not to mention others less widespread and enduring1, and possibly of later introduction), which united the greatest celebrations of the Christian and the Jewish calendar, would not have been so generally retained, or early and quickly adopted, if the observance or non-observance of the Passover had, only a short time before, been bound up with the divergences between two great parties among Christians, who were diametrically opposed to one another. And it is, further, to be remarked that in the first controversy on Quartodecimanism, which comes before us with sufficient clearness for us to understand its nature2, the point at issue was mainly one of Church order. Moreover this was not the inadequate cause that to some at the present day it may appear to be. It was a matter of great con- sequence that Christians should be united through common thoughts and feelings in regard to the great acts and moments in their Church life, that they should mourn and rejoice together3.
We have still to consider whether, or in what degree, the conclusions which we have reached affect the question of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. We have seen that the commemoration of the Last Supper itself was not the object of Quartodeciman observance. If it had been",
1 Such as the use of unleavened bread (Hilgenfeld, 1. c. p. 211, n. 2), and the eating of a lamb (Drummond, 1. c. pp. 610 — 615).
- When Victor excommunicated the Quartodecimans; we know too little of that in Laodicea twenty-five years earlier to judge of it.
3 It does not concern us here to follow out the later history of Paschal obser- vance. On it see among others, Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen, Vol. I. No. 9, Die Entwickelung d. Osterfastens, and Duchesne, La Question de la Pfique au Concile de Niece in Revue des Questions Historiques, Vol. xxvm., bearing in mind in regard to the latter the cautions given above, p. 183 n.
13—2
196 Quartodecimanism and the Fourth Gospel
then clearly the same man could not consistently have encouraged it, and have written the narrative of the events of the Passover in the Fourth Gospel. But on the other hand, Quartodecimans frequently, and even so early as circ. A.D. 165, defended their practice of continuing to observe the Jewish Paschal day by the argument that Jesus Himself had eaten the Passover with His disciples on that day. If it could be shewn, or rendered probable, that this reason for keeping the fourteenth was given at the end of the first century or near the beginning of the second, in the region where the Apostle John lived, there would be a presumption that he could not have taught that chronology of the Passion which we gather from the Gospel attributed to him ; for a different one must in that case have been held by those who must have known his mind. But arguments in defence of a custom are often not devised till it is challenged, and may have nothing to do with the causes for its existence. The practice now in question must have seemed so natural among early believers, that it did not then require reasons to justify it.
We require proof, then, that Christians who observed the Passover in Apostolic and Sub-apostolic times made that appeal to the example of Christ to which Apollinaris, and others after him, refer. Now such proof is not forth- coming ; on the contrary there is reason to think that the argument was a new one in Apollinaris' time. I so far agree with what is said in regard to his language by those who contend that he was a Quartodeciman as to hold that if the reason for Quartodecimanism which he combats had been long known and recognised, and put forward by Quarto- decimans generally, that is by the great majority of the Churches of Asia and their bishops, he could not have spoken of those who used it in the terms he does Further Polycarp is not said to have urged it at the time of his conference with Anicetus, and we have evidence in the peaceable ter- mination of that conference that he did not. So long as the difference of practice was defended simply on the ground of local custom, even though this was traced to an Apostle, or Apostles, who had founded a particular Church, no irritating
Quartodecimanism and the Fourth Gospel 197
point was introduced. But if the example of the Lord had been urged this would have implied that other Churches ought to give up their different usage1.
The employment, therefore, of this argument by Quarto- decimans of the latter part of the second century, affords no ground for calling in question the authenticity of the Gospel accg to St John ; and in another way the history of the Quartodeciman controversy supplies valuable evidence of the early and wide reception of the Fourth Gospel. Apollinaris is able to assume that his opponents will allow that the Synoptics and St John must not be made to contradict one another2. Once more, Polycrates, the defender of Quarto- decimanism, plainly identifies the writer of the Fourth Gospel with the Apostle John. There is not the slightest sign that Quartodecimans as such ever resisted its authority. Evidently they had accepted it without considering whether its state- ments made for or against their particular custom, and when it was used against them they did not think of calling its authenticity in question. They must no doubt have had some way, which satisfied themselves, of reconciling the Johannine account to the Synoptic, just as Origen and Eusebius must, who, though they were not Quartodecimans, held that the Last Supper took place on the fourteenth ; and as on the other hand Apollinaris, Hippolytus and Clement must, who thought they could best harmonise the different accounts by adopting the view most naturally to be inferred from St John.
1 On the point that the arguments used by Quartodecimans in the latter part of the second century do not shew what the view of Paschal observance taken by the Apostle John was, cp. Bleek, Beitrdge pp. 1^3-4, and Introd. to N. T. I. pp. 20, 7, 8, and Schiirer, 1. c. pp. 274, 5. The considerations brought forward by me are partly different from those which they urge; they have the Tubingen position chiefly before their minds. But their reasoning is to the same effect.
2 Baur interpreted the words of Apollinaris as meaning that the Gospels and the Law would not conflict ; but this is evidently forced. It has also been sug- gested that Apollinaris had in his mind some Gospel other than St John, in spite of the parallelisms between Apollinaris' language and that of St John, and the fact that we know of no other which would suit. Hilgenfeld saw that the natural force of the passage could not be evaded by either of these devices, 1. c. PP- 53. 57 "• i-
198 Irenaeus on certain who rejected
(6) TJie Impugners of St John's writings.
We pass to a phenomenon which obviously must be examined in connexion with the subject upon which we are now engaged. In the last quarter of the second century there were some Christians whose main, or most patent, difference from the general body of believers was that they rejected the writings attributed to the Apostle John. In recent years, while controversy on many other points in the history of the reception of the Gospels has greatly abated, the party holding the views just referred to have attracted increased attention1. It will be necessary that we should estimate aright, so far as we can, the significance of the existence of such a party. And with this object we must first endeavour to ascertain the considerations by which they were influenced in maintaining the views which they did.
Irenaeus in his famous passage on the Fourfold Gospel2, when speaking of those who err by adopting either fewer, or more, Gospels than the Four generally acknowledged by the Church, gives this instance of the former class : — " Others in order that they may frustrate the gift of the Spirit, which in the last times according to the good pleasure of the Father has been poured out upon the human race, do not admit that form (of the Gospel), which is according to John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised that he would send the Paraclete, but reject at the same time the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit. Truly unhappy men, who indeed choose to be false prophets, but reject the grace of prophecy from the Church! Their case
1 Two of the chief older discussions of the subject are those of F. A. Heinichen, De Alogis, Theodotianis, atque Artetnonitis (1829); and Dollinger, Hippolylus und Callisttis (1853), Eng. Trans. (1876) pp. 272 — 288. The following expressions of opinion are also of interest in connexion with the history of controversy upon it : Credner, Kanon, p. 185, with Volkmar's note ib.\ Hilgenfeld, Ketzergesch. p. 599 f. ; Lipsius, Quellen d. alt. Ketzergesch. (1875) p. 101 ff. ; S. Davidson, Introd. to N. T. (1882) II. pp. 386-7; Holtzmann, Einleit. pp. 468-9; Westcott, Canon, p. 285. The fullest treatment is that by Zahn, Kanon I. pp. 220 — 262, and II. 967 — 973, with which Harnack, Das N. T. urn das Jahr 200, pp. 58 — 70, and Chron. I. pp. 670-1, should be compared. The fullest in English, though brief by comparison, are Lightfoot's, Biblical Essays, pp. 115 — 119, and Sanday's, Expositor for 1891, pt II. pp. 405-7, and Inspiration pp. 14, 15 and 64-5.
2 Adv. Hour. in. xi. 6 — 9. The sentences quoted in the sequel occur in § 9.
the Gospel according to St John 199
is like that of those who, because there are some who come in hypocrisy, abstain from the communion of brethren. But it is clear that persons of this sort could not receive the Apostle Paul either. For in his Epistle to the Corinthians, he spoke studiously about prophetic gifts, and he knows of men and women in the Church who prophesy. Through all these things then they sin against the Spirit of God and fall into the unpardonable sin." The general drift of this passage is plain, and we gather from it that the rejection of St John's Gospel by those whom Irenaeus here condemns was con- nected with opposition to the extravagant and fanatical claims to prophetic gifts made by the Montanists and others1. The promise of the coming of the Paraclete, made more particularly in that Gospel, could be, and doubtless was. cited to prove that such grace was to be expected, and the argument was met on the part of some by denying the authenticity of the document. Irenaeus himself was ready to allow that not all the pretended prophecies were truly such, but he had no sympathy with men who, on account of abuses connected with the recognition of the gift of prophecy, were prepared to deny the continued presence of the Holy Spirit of prophecy in the Church2.
Here, then, we have one ground on which the genuineness
1 The only words that can cause any difficulty are qui pseudo-prophetae esse vohtnt. Bishop Lightfoot (1. c. pp. 115. 116) emends them by reading the accusative pseudo-prophetas for pseudo-prophetae, and understands the point to be that the persons in question "confess the existence of false prophets, and yet deny the existence of a true prophecy." Zahn 1. c. n. p. 971 ff. makes also a further change, of volunt into nolunt, with the meaning that in their anxiety to guard against false prophets they were for abolishing the gift of prophecy altogether. But both these are rather tame statements, which do not suit well with the indignant strain of the passage. It seems better to retain the text as it stands. Irenaeus seems to mean that these misbelievers choose to play the role of prophets, but are false ones, and condemn themselves in the very act of condemning prophecy.
2 It used to be not uncommon to take this passage of Irenaeus as directed against the Montanists, instead of against their most decided opponents. E.g. see Volkmar, note in his edition of Credner's Kanon, p. 185; Harvey, note in his edition of Irenaeus in loc. This interpretation is an extremely forced one, and has been generally abandoned. Its adoption was, perhaps, due to the fact that the Mon- tanists were much more familiar heretics than the persons whom Irenaeus has actually in view. It was also, perhaps, forgotten that the Montanists had not yet been formally condemned, and that Irenaeus and many other orthodox Churchmen felt much sympathy with their views.
200 Epiphanius and Philaster on the rejection
of the Fourth Gospel was denied. There is, however, other evidence which must be compared with that of Irenaeus. Epiphanius1 and Philaster2, in their treatises on Heresies, describe one which consisted in " the rejection of the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John." The value of the statements of these two writers of the latter part of the fourth century is greatly enhanced by the probability that they have used here, as frequently elsewhere, the lost compendium Against all Heresies by Hippolytus, or if not this, then another work of his, also lost, On behalf of the Gospel according to John and the Apocalypse*. Philaster in his brief description appears to be simply reproducing his source. The two points to be noted in it are that the persons in question asserted that the heretic Cerinthus was the author of the Gospel and the Apocalypse ascribed to John, and that the cause of their error lay in their not perceiving the force of the Scripture4. The attribution to Cerinthus is expressly confirmed by Epiphanius5, and their
1 Panar. LI. 2 De Haer. LX.
3 R. A. Lipsius has shewn that in all probability the compendium Against all Heresies by Hippolytus was the chief common authority used by Epiphanius and Philaster in their Heresiologies. See his Zur Quellenkritik d. Epiphanius, 1865, and for a succinct account of the argument, Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt i, II. pp. 415-18. It is not, however, possible to make out with certainty the complete list of thirty-two heresies which Hippolytus' work contained; there is doubt about one or two, and it is uncertain whether the misbelievers now in question, whom Epiphanius calls Alogi, were included. Lipsius holds that they were not, Harnack and Zahn that they were. See Lipsius 1. c. pp. 23-8, 233-4; Harnack, Zcitschr. f. hist. Theol. 1874, II. pp. 162 — 170; Lipsius' reply, Die Quetlen d. dltesten Ketzergeschichte, 1875, p. 93 ff. ; Zahn, Kan. I. p. 223 (ih. n. p. 971 n., however, he says that the question whether it was this or the other work of Hip- polytus named above, must remain undecided); Harnack, Das N. T. urn d.Jakr 200, p. 62. The fact that Epiphanius and Philaster introduce the Alogi at quite different points tells strongly in favour of Lipsius' view. On the other hand there is a certain probability that they used the work here which they used elsewhere, rather than a different one. Philaster's concise statement, also, accords well with what we may imagine the character of the "compendium " to have been. It is very possible, too, that, if Epiphanius used this work, he may, as Zahn suggests, have had recourse to the Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of yohn (vntp TOV /card 'lujdvvrjv evayyeXiov xai aVo/caXity'ewj) as well.
4 Post hos sunt haeretici qui evangelium secundum Joannem et apocalypsim ipsius non accipiunt, et cum non intelligunt virtutem Scripturae, nee desiderant discere, in haeresi permanent pereuntes, ut etiam Cerinthi illius haeretici esse audeant dicere.
5 Panar. LI. § 3 end. Atyovffi yap /j.r) elvai aura 'ludvvov d\\d Krjplvtiov, Kai OVK d£to ai/ra <pa<nv civai cv eKK\i)<rla.
of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John 201
misunderstanding of the Scripture is illustrated by the objections which the latter quotes, founded on discrepancies between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics1, and on a too literal interpretation of the language of the Apocalypse which enabled them to turn it into ridicule2.
After noticing these cavils, Epiphanius employs expres- sions closely resembling, and in part identicalwith, those of Irenaeus in regard to the resistance which these adversaries offered to the Spirit ; but he sees their rejection of the Spirit in their attitude to St John's writings, in which, as well as in the other Scriptures, the gifts of the Spirit to the Church are exhibited3, while he passes over the denial of the perpetuity of such gifts upon which Irenaeus lays much stress. This passage goes far to establish the identity of the persons to whom Irenaeus refers as rejecting alike the Gospel of John and " the Prophetic Spirit," with those who according to Epiphanius rejected both the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John. Moreover, it is most likely that Epiphanius obtained Irenaeus' expressions not directly but through Hippolytus. The judgment which they convey has been prepared for by those parts of the previous disquisition which there is the strongest reason to think have been supplied to him by Hippolytus, his quotations of the actual objections of the
1 Two alleged discrepancies are mentioned : («) one in § 4, to which Epiphanius recurs in §§ 13, 15, 18: (b) another in § 22, which gives occasion for a long dis- quisition, §§ 22 — 31.
a See §§ 32—34.
3 § 35. The thought appears more than once before: — "They feared the voice of the Holy Spirit . . . which was given to the world through the holy apostles and evangelists" (§ i); "the doctrine and the sequence of narratives" in the Gospels "were from the Holy Spirit" (§ 4); they "speak against the Holy Spirit and the marvellous sequence of the Gospels" (§ 6). These allusions, to- gether with the paragraph at the end of the disquisition, give us, unless I am much mistaken, the means for distinguishing the representation of the opinions of those heretics which Epiphanius found in Hippolytus from the matter which he adds. In the two opening sections he speaks, by way of introduction, of the duty of detecting poisonous serpents; then (§ 3) for the old name of the heresy he pro- poses to substitute a new name, and forthwith comes to the first objection made by the heretics (§ 4). From this point onward it is not difficult, in spite of Epiphanius' own long digressions, to trace a thread of argument, belonging to this source, which has for its object to set forth the dishonour done to the Scriptures and so to their Author, the Holy Spirit, by the persons in question.
202 Epiphanius term "the Alogi"
heretics in question1. And the fact that their hostility to the prophetic gifts is not mentioned, is amply explained by the change of attitude of the Church generally on this subject in the interval between the times when Irenaeus and Hippolytus wrote.
There are then clear signs of correspondence between the opinions described by Irenaeus, on the one hand, and by Epiphanius and Philaster, who (it seems) follow Hippolytus, on the other. Nor does the fact that Irenaeus is silent as to the rejection of anything but the Gospel accg to St Jolin^ afford good ground for thinking that the party which he has in view was not the same as that to which later writers refer*. Indeed it must be allowed to be probable that those of whom he speaks would be opponents of the reception of the Apocalypse. For to strong anti-Montanists the Apocalypse must have been even more distasteful than the Gospel according to St John, because it seemed to encourage the Millenarian dreams in which the Montanists revelled, and which furnished them with a model, as it were, for their own prophecies3.
There is yet one point in Epiphanius' characterisation of these heretics of which I have not spoken, though it meets
1 Cp. Zahn pp. 226-7. Zahn however, p. 226 n. i, thinks the obliteration of the reference to the charismata is due to Epiphanius, to whom the question of their continuance in the Church was not a matter of interest. I am doubtful of this, because (see last note) the course of Hippolytus' argument, so far as we can gather what it was, would naturally lead him to dwell on the resistance to the Holy Spirit shewn in the rejection of Scriptures.
- Zahn (I. c. p. 245) well points out that in the immediate context there is a parallel in the case of Marcion's Gospel. Irenaeus alludes to his treatment of the Gospels, but says nothing of his having rejected the rest of the Scriptures, saving ten of St Paul's epistles, which he mutilated.
3 For a remarkable illustration of the rejection of the Apocalypse on this ground see below p. 206. Volkmar (1. c.) held that Hippolytus had thrown together in his Defence of the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John, all who attacked St John's, writings, even the most different, and that the coupling together of opponents of the Gospel and the Apocalypse to form a single party is a mere illusion. But the words which both Epiphanius and Philaster use, and evidently reproduce from a common source, shew that Volkmar was quite mistaken. At the same time, no doubt, Hippolytus' treatise may have been intended to serve as a reply to those who rejected only the Apocalypse, as well as to those who also rejected the Gospel. It is probable that the same party rejected also the First Epistle of St John, and the Second and Third (so far as they were then received). Epi- phanius conjectures that they did, but he does not know it for a fact (§ 34). Doubtless the main attack was directed against the Gospel and the Apocalypse.
Epiphanius term "the Alogi" 203
the reader almost at the beginning of his disquisition on them1. For the circumlocution by which they have been known in the past he proposes to substitute the name of Alogi, " because they do not receive the Logos preached by John'V The name had no doubt the additional attraction that it could bear the meaning "irrational persons." But we are concerned simply with the accusation that they were opposed to the doctrine of the Logos. It appears to be Epiphanius' own inference from the fact that they did not acknowledge the Gospel in which more especially that truth was taught. He quotes no words of theirs which imply it; if he had known any, he would almost certainly have made a point of dragging them forward. After starting on ihis scent he quickly abandons it, — clearly because he has no information that is to the purpose, — and then, falling into the track of his predecessor, gives the proof that in denying sacred Scriptures they did despite to the Holy Spirit. But indeed the language which he actually uses about them renders it impossible to suppose that they can have openly professed any doubts as to the Incarnation of the Divine Word. "They seem," he says, "to believe just as we do8." A zealous champion of Nicene orthodoxy, such as Epiphanius was, could not have expressed himself thus about men who had called in question this article of the Faith. But he is determined to unmask the comparatively harmless appearance. He will reveal the sinister motive by which, he assumes, they must be actuated4.
1 §§ 3, 4-
2 It appears to me impossible to accept Lightfoot's suggestion (Bibl. Essays, p. 119; and Ap. Frs, Pt i, II. p. 394; urged, also, by Rendel Harris, Hernias in Arcadia and other Essays, pp. 50-2), that he borrowed this name from Hippolytus. Epiphanius' own expressions, and the use by Philaster of the name which Epiphanius proposes to put aside, are strongly against this. (Cp. Zahn 1. c. p. 242 n. i.) Other considerations unfavourable to this theory might also be adduced. The only argument for it is that Hippolytus was fond of making puns of the kind ; but Epiphanius may well have imitated him in this.
3 § 4. 8oKOv<Ti yap /cai auroi TO. tea. TJ/UUV iriartvtiv .
4 In Das N. T. urn d. J. 200, Harnack treated the name "Alogi" given by Epiphanius, and his remarks thereon, as the most material piece of evidence which we have for ascertaining the opinions of the sect, and blamed Zahn severely for starting from the passage in Irenaeus. He himself admitted that the latter probably referred to the same persons, but gave it quite a subordinate place. It is satis-
204 Grounds on which the Johannine writings
It may however be suggested that Epiphanius' charge is confirmed by the circumstance that the Alogi attributed the Gospel according to St John to Cerinthus. It is possible
factory to note a complete change of front, though one silently effected, in his Chronologic, i. p. 670. He now writes, "So much is certain, that they (the Alogi) were decided opponents of the Montanists (who sought to found and to justify their new institution above all out of the Johannine writings), that they did not belong to the heretical-gnostic schools, and that the gospel which they com- pared with the synoptics and pronounced to be historically incorrect, and essentially false (because of Gnostic tendencies), was attributed by them to Cerinthus." The opposition to these writings on the ground of supposed Gnostic tendencies takes now the second place. Also he says not a word about resistance to the doctrine of the Logos, though he may as before connect this with the charge of Gnosticism. According to his earlier work, the Alogi "rejected the Johannine Logos, because it seemed to them to involve a docetic doctrine." He asserts that they "expressly raised the objection, that according to the Johannine Gospel the Logos became flesh, in order forthwith to begin his activity in Cana. That seemed to them Gnostic" (p. 63). All this, however, is imaginary. The whole stress in the objection of the Alogi, as Epiphanius gives it, is upon the dis- crepancies between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics in regard to the order of events. And Epiphanius himself understood this to be its purport. He occupies himself with this alone in his reply.
One other argument is used by Harnack (p. 65), and others, for the supposed rejection of the doctrine of the Logos by the Alogi ; and it finds favour with Dr Sanday (Inspiration, p. 64). Epiphanius calls Theodotus, who declared Jesus to be "a mere man," an offshoot from the Alogi. But it is not unfair I think to Epiphanius to hold that, after persuading himself that the Alogi rejected the Logos, because they rejected the Gospel ol the Logos, he would be quite ready to infer that Theodotus' opinions were a growth from theirs. Dr Sanday, indeed, thinks that a rationalizing tendency such as that of the Alogi must inevitably have gone further, and that on this ground the statement of Epiphanius before us may be accepted. There is force in this remark; yet we are hardly justified in imputing the views of those whose rationalizing tendency had developed to those in whom it was still latent.
If we compare Bp Lightfoot's Biblical Essays, p. 115 ff. (printed after his death from lecture-notes), with Ap, Frs, Pt i, II. p. 394 (also published after his death), we observe a change in the opposite direction to that which has taken place in Dr Harnack's case. At the earlier time Bp Lightfoot shews admirably that Epiphanius as well as Irenaeus "is describing an anti-Spiritualist, anti- Montanist movement"; while "in every other respect the Alogi seem to have been orthodox." "It does not appear," he adds, "that they rejected the doctrine of St John's Gospel — They may, however, have repudiated the Johannine form under which the Divinity of Our Lord was taught, though even this is doubtful." At the later date he writes that they "objected to both works" (the Gospel and the Apocalypse) "alike, because they described Our Lord as the A6709." It may be permissible to surmise that when he penned this statement in the Essay on which he was engaged in his last illness, and which was left unfinished, he did not refresh his memory as to the evidence.
attributed to Cerinthus 205
that they may in so doing have intended in a vague and general way to impute Gnostic tendencies to the Fourth Gospel. But the use of Cerinthus' name could not have contained an allusion to the Logos, if the accounts which we have of his doctrines are true. He did not, according to them, use the term, nor had he truly the idea ; he spoke of the world as created " by a certain Power separated and distant from the Authority which is over all things, and ignorant of the God who is over all." Further, he said that "the Christ" descended upon Jesus at His baptism1.
The fact, indeed, that certain Gnostics of a different type — Valentinus and Basilides, or at all events some of their chief disciples — quoted and commented on the Gospel according to St John may have created a prejudice against it in some quarters. There would be nothing strange in this ; the strange thing, indeed, is that there is so little trace of any feeling of the kind and that it must at the utmost have existed only to a very limited degree. That a charge against the doctrine of the Logos, as being Gnostic, was ever con- nected therewith, there is, so far as I am aware, no ground for thinking. The Gnostics do not appear to have valued the Fourth Gospel specially because of its doctrine of the Logos* ; while on the contrary this doctrine was the corner- stone of the thought of great anti-Gnostic teachers such as Justin and Irenaeus. It took account marvellously of what- ever truth there was in the Gnostic speculations, and brought it into harmony with the Old Testament Revelation and with the faith of simple Christians, and thus furnished the best possible antidote to Gnosticism. Nevertheless, the powers of human misapprehension were doubtless as great then as they are in the present day. And the conception of the Logos was a difficult one. The blunder of supposing it to be Gnostic might have been made. My point simply is that so far as we know it was not, and that the attribution of the
1 Iren. Adv. ffaer. I. xxvi. i, repeated by Hippol. Refut. vil. 33. According to Epiphanius, Panar. xxvin., he taught that the world was made by angels.
2 The position of the Logos in Gnostic systems was very different from, and of far less significance than, that which it held in the teaching of St John. E.g. see Iren. Adv. Haer. I. ix. 2, 3; n. xvii. 5 f . ; xxviii. 3 f.
206 Grounds on which the Johannine writings
Fourth Gospel to Cerinthus, in particular, could hardly have been dictated by such an idea.
Some additional evidence as to the rejection of the Apo- calypse has to be taken into account, and we may conveniently advert to it at this point. Dionysius of Alexandria tells us that there were certain before his time, who had "wholly made away with " the Apocalypse. Going through it chapter by chapter they had argued that it was senseless and incon- sequent. Its title, they said, was a fraud ; it was not an Apocalypse, since it was so obscure, and it was not John's. They attributed it to Cerinthus, alleging that this was his doctrine, namely, that the kingdom of the Christ would be on earth, while he pictured its delights after a carnal manner, in accordance with his own sensual desires1. We do not know whether the persons referred to by Dionysius also rejected the Gospel according to John. It is possible that they may have done so and that he passes this over, because for the moment he is concerned only with the Apocalypse, of the authorship of which he himself is about to treat. Perhaps it is most likely on the whole, that in his reference he included some who did, and some who did not, accept the Gospel. But at all events their view of the Apocalypse is not unconnected with that of the so-called " Alogi." They not only assigned it to the same author, but they applied to it the same kind of criticism ; and they were opposed to it on the same doctrinal ground. For there can be little doubt that Gaius, a learned Roman Christian, and probably a clergyman, who, near the end of the second century, wrote against the Montanists, was one of the persons to whom Dionysius alludes. Eusebius quotes a passage from Gaius' Dialogue with Proclus the Montanist^ in which Cerinthus is accused of having put forth, under the name of a great Apostle, revelations of awful things which (it was pretended) had been communicated by angels, and the prediction of a grossly material reign of Christ. In the same work Gaius upbraided the Montanists with having audaciously composed new writings. That they should have adopted a forgery would not be a very dissimilar notion2. It
1 Ap. Eus. H. E. vn. xxv. 1—4.
2 Ap. Eus. H. E. in. xxviii. i, 2; vi. xx. 3.
were attributed to Cerinthus 207
is doubtful whether Gaius in this Dialogue made it plain that by Cerinthus' forgery, of which he spoke, he meant the Apocalypse generally believed to be by the Apostle John. His language may have been somewhat ambiguous1. Never- theless, what Eusebius tells us about Gaius, taken with the statement of Dionysius and with what we know of the Alogi, would of itself incline us to believe that he was one of the opponents of the Apocalypse; and this has now been rendered practically certain by Dr Gwynn's discovery a few years ago of some fragments of Hippolytus' Heads against Gaius, in which objections against the Apocalypse, of a kind corresponding to Dionysius' description, and similar to those recounted by Epiphanius, are propounded by Gaius and replied to by Hippolytus2. It is not impossible that Gains may also have denied the authenticity of the Gospel according to St John, though the evidence that we at present possess does not appear to me to shew it3.
Zahn supposes that those who desired to discredit the Johannine writings, seized upon Cerinthus as the person to whom to ascribe them merely because he was a contemporary of the Apostle, and one whom tradition had represented as his antagonist, and that the alleged Millenarianism of Cerinthus is a figment, created out of this association of his name with the Apocalypse4. But it seems more likely that Cerinthus' known opinions led to his being selected. That Irenaeus and Hippolytus are silent about his being a Millenarian5 does not shew that he was not one, seeing that he would not appear to them to be heretical in this; and what they do say about him does not render it improbable. His beliefs appear to have been partly Jewish and only to a limited extent affected by the Gnostic spirit.
1 If it was not, it would be difficult to understand how Eusebius could have cited what was in reality an attack upon that work as if it was simply a piece of information about Cerinthus. It would also be strange that when noting the fact that Gaius did not acknowledge the Apostolicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, he should have made no mention of his rejection of the Apocalypse (Eus. H. E. VI. xx. 3), in regard to the position of which he in general shews no less interest.
2 See Herntathena for 1888, p. 397 ff. A German translation of the fragments is given by Zahn, Kan. II. p. 973 ff.
3 See Additional Note, p. 239 ff. 4 1. c. p. 230, n. i. 5 Iren. Adv. Haer. I. xxvi. i. Hippol. Refut. vn. 33.
2o8 Time and place of the rise of the Alogi
Perhaps, therefore, a fancied similarity between the escha- tological teaching of Cerinthus and the Apocalypse suggested the notion of attributing it to him. The indications in ancient writers, such as they are, point to this conclusion. Then his authorship would be extended to the Gospel, because that also had been reputed to be John's and was a work objected to. That Cerinthus had held blameworthy opinions on more than one subject would be an additional recommendation. But the use of his name did not, it would seem, and was not fitted to, convey any specific condemnation of characteristic features in the teaching of the Fourth Gospel.
Thus far we have been occupied with the principles of these Impugners of the Gospel and Apocalypse of St John. The only doctrinal motive, of which we have found any trace, is an aversion to Millenarianism and to the Montanist and other similar prophecies. At the same time it was perceived that the representation of the Saviour's Ministry in the Gospel said to be by the Apostle John seemed to conflict with that in the Synoptic Gospels, while the symbolism of the Apo- calypse was felt to be distasteful and its style obscure.
There are a few more points in regard to this party which must be discussed before we view the facts more generally in relation to the history of the reception of the Fourth Gospel in the Church. Irenaeus' reference to them enables us to fix approximately the time of their rise. They must have appeared at least a little time before the composition of the third book of his Treatise against Heresies, and yet after Montanism had begun to attract attention. A.D. 160 — 180 will be sufficiently wide limits to take. But we may with some probability fix the date more nearly. The Montanist move- ment began, according to Eusebius, to spread widely and to excite strong disapprobation a little before A.D. 177*. It is natural to regard the so-called Alogi as the left wing of the opposition to Montanism which then declared itself.
1 Montanism was attracting the attention of the Christian world generally circ. A.D. 177 (Eus. H. E. v. 3). How long before Montanus himself began to prophesy in Phrygia it is not easy to determine. Eusebius in his Chronicle notices him under A.D. 172 ; but there are strong reasons for placing the beginning of his teaching as much as fifteen years earlier, circ. A.D. 157. Cp. Zahn, Forsch. V. 13 ff. Harnack, Chron. I. p. 363 ff. Salmon, Diet, of Chr. Bio. III. p. 937.
Connexion of the Alogi with Asia Minor 209
A few words must be said as to the region to which they belonged. The following is the only reference in an ancient writer which connects them definitely with a particular district. One of their objections to the Apocalypse which Epiphanius quotes is that allusion is therein made to a Church in Thyatira, whereas there is no Church in Thyatira. In replying to this, Epiphanius charges them with having, along with the Monta- nists, caused the desolation of the Church in Thyatira1. But in point of fact he seems to have introduced the mention of the Alogi into a reply taken, like the objection, from his source, and which referred solely to the Montanists2. His intention would seem to have been to make his attack upon the misbelievers with whom he is immediately dealing more direct ; but he overreaches himself. For Alogi could not have found fault with the Apocalypse for assuming that a Church existed in Thyatira, if they themselves had been members of it. The fact, however, that the Alogi urged this objection may, perhaps, be taken to imply local knowledge. Again, in Asia Minor, the birthplace and early home of Montanism, the most violent and reckless reaction from it might naturally shew itself. But neither of these reasons is very cogent. The fact, if such it was, in regard to Thyatira might have been learned by persons at a distance. Still it is on other grounds probable that the Alogi's way of thinking originated in Asia Minor, the home of the opinions which aroused their repugnance. But the centre of the party may have been early transferred to Rome. Indeed, a few, even one or two, Christians from Asia Minor, who held these views, for which (for aught we know) they may have found little sympathy in their own country, may have come to Rome, and there first have made some, though certainly not any great, impression. It is with Rome chiefly that we have reason to connect the party. There Irenaeus may naturally have met with representatives of it. There at
1 § 33-
2 The rest of the section is occupied with the Montanists. The periods of years cannot be harmonised with Epiphanius' time; he must have taken them as they stood in his source. For their bearing on the history of Montanism see Zahn, Forsch. v. p. 35 ff. ; Harnack, Chron. I. p. 376 ff.
S. G. 14
210 The Alogi arid the history
all events some twenty-five to thirty years later Gaius main- tained its views, at least as regards the Apocalypse ; and there Hippolytus carried on the controversy as a defender both of this book and of the Gospel.
Lastly, the Alogi do not seem to have exercised much influence. We hear little of them. No one distinguished by character, ability, or position in the Church seems to have embraced their views as a whole. There is no reason to think that the omission of the Apocalypse from the Canon which was general for a considerable period in the Eastern Church was in any true sense inherited from them ; while antagonism to the Gospel according to St John very soon ceased altogether.
How far, then, we may now enquire, does the existence of this party, — not outside the Church but within it1, from A.D. 175, or possibly ten years or so earlier, and onward to the end of the century, or a little longer — shew that the authority of the Fourth Gospel was as yet not firmly estab- lished ? We shall do well, for clearness' sake, to consider this question under two aspects. We will ask first what is implied as to the temper of Churchmen generally in the fact that men holding these opinions were suffered to remain in the Church; and secondly, as regards these persons them- selves, how we are to account for the psychological phe- nomenon of difference from others as to the Johannine writings combined with agreement in most respects ?
(i) Harnack has said that the attitude of Irenaeus and Hippolytus to the Alogi is "comparatively friendly2." To all other readers their words will, I think, seem to convey the sternest condemnation. "By all these things" (i.e. their denial of the reality of spiritual gifts and rejection of the Gospel
1 Dr Harnack and some other writers are eloquent about the excellence of the Churchmanship of the Alogi. They were "good Catholic Christians" (Das N. 7*. etc. cp. 59), "good Christians" (tb. p. 67); "Christians who agreed with the great Church in the Rule of Faith" (Chron. I. p. 671). Such language is scarcely warranted. Epiphanius observes that they "seem to believe the same as we do"; and there was, it is true, no formal breach. But we can all think of individuals and parties in our own and other times of whom as much might be said, though their spirit and views are not, or have not been, those of the Church generally. By exaegerated expressions, such as those which I have just quoted from Dr Har- nack, the truth of a historical picture is destroyed.
2 Das N. T. urn d. J. 200, p. 69.
of the reception of the Fourth Gospel 2 1 1
according to St John), writes Irenaeus, " they sin against the Spirit of God, and fall into the unpardonable sin." Hippolytus — if, as is probable, Epiphanius is reproducing him — repeated this denunciation. If this language is "comparatively friendly," it would be interesting to know what, in Dr Harnack's judg- ment, would be "comparatively un- friendly" language.
The Alogi, however, were not excommunicated. Happily, throughout the history of the Church, it has usually taken some considerable time and effort to secure the excommuni- cation of any class of heretics. The fact that no formal sentence was passed upon the Alogi may ''shew little more than that they never gave much trouble, because they were never numerous and did not long continue to exist as a party. In addition to this, as Dr Sanday has remarked, " the Church did not purge itself of heresy so promptly in these early days as it did later1." The organisation, which could be used effectively for the purpose, was not yet perfected. Moreover, during the period in question the energies of Churchmen were largely occupied in coping with a far more powerful move- ment, that of Montanism, against which the Alogi themselves contended.
(2) There is nothing, then, in the measure of toleration accorded to the Alogi, which betokens uncertainty in the mind of the Church at the time, as to the authority belonging to the Fourth Gospel. But may the existence of such un- certainty be inferred from the very circumstance that this Gospel was attacked ? Do these Alogi mark for us the moment when the admission of the Gospel of John to a like position with the Synoptic Gospels, which were already read in the Church, was under discussion, and was resisted on the ground of the doctrinal tendencies of this Gospel and of its being in conflict with the older Gospels ? and finally, is it specially damaging to its claims that this resistance was made in Asia Minor (on the supposition that it actually did shew itself there)'2 ?
It is difficult to say how far the want of correspondence
1 Expositor, 1891, Ft II. p. 406-7.
2 I have framed these questions on Dr Harnack's objections: Das N. T. etc. p. 70. Cp. also, to much the same effect, Chron. i. p. 670-1.
14—2
2i2 Significance of the Alogi
between the Fourth Gospel and the other three was held of itself to furnish a ground for rejecting the Fourth, because of the other motives that we find combined with it, — the support which it seemed to lend to Montanism, and the dislike of the Apocalypse, which was reputed to be by the same author. We should certainly not be justified in thinking that the discrepancies with the other Gospels were not felt as genuine objections. But as there were those other reasons for wishing to see it discredited, the mere fact that on certain points it stood as one against three would be to its disadvantage. It should be observed also that the Alogi do not seem to have urged that the honour paid to the Fourth Gospel was some- thing new. On the contrary, they certainly did not dispute the idea that the writing had come down from the Apostolic Age, since they suggested that a man who was believed to be a contemporary of the Apostle John was the author.
We have seen that the evidence for the connexion of this party with Asia Minor is of a very slender description. No one, it seems to me, is entitled to argue as if it were a fact which could not fairly be disputed. But on the other hand, it is not well to overlook the possibility that it may be true. It ought not, however, to be assumed that in Asia Minor, as well as elsewhere, there might not be members of the Church who had never become thoroughly imbued with the local traditions. Indeed it would be likely that there should be such in its great cities on and near the coast, where there must have been frequent changes in the population, even more than in places where life was more stable.
I have urged reasons for not attributing to the instance of the Alogi the amount of importance which some have done ; but I would not be understood to mean that it is without significance in regard to the history of the formation of the Canon. It does not shew that the beliefs to which they were opposed were not commonly held, or had been quite recently adopted, still less that they were only then spreading ; it does, however, shew that the conception of the Fourfold Gospel had not as yet acquired that firm hold on the mind of every professing Christian, which only clear and positive definition and a prescription of some generations could give.
Statements of Irenaeus in regard to John 2 1 3
(7 a) Strictures upon the testimony of two of the chief witnesses for the truth of the common tradition : (a) Irenaeus.
The chief references which Irenaeus makes to the presence and influence of the Apostle John in Asia and to his writings are familiar to all students of early Church history, and of the history of the New Testament Canon. But it may be con- venient that I should here recall them.
In the third book of his work Against Heresies, after mentioning the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, he proceeds : — " Thereupon John the disciple of the Lord, who leaned upon his breast, himself too set forth the gospel while dwelling in Ephesus, the city of Asia1." One or two critics have ventured to maintain that even Irenaeus is speaking here of John the Elder. There ought never to have been a doubt that he means the Apostle, the son of Zebedee. For this one is a more or less prominent figure in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles, and there would have been obvious danger of confusion, if any other John had been designated as " the disciple of the Lord." Moreover he " who leaned upon the breast of Jesus" — plainly at the Last Supper — could only be one of the -twelve in the view of anyone who accepted the Synoptic Gospels ; for these Gospels at all events leave no doubt that only the twelve were present2. Besides, he is contending that the Apostles left in writings that Gospel which they preached, and accordingly in referring to Mark and Luke he notes the connexion of the one with Peter and the other with Paul. The Apostolic authority of the other two Gospels is assumed. A little further on he writes : " The Church in Ephesus, also, which was founded by Paul, while John remained with them till the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the Apostles' tradition3."
Near the end of Domitian's reign, according to Irenaeus, John saw the Apocalypse4. Irenaeus also quotes from the
1 Adv. Haer. ill. i. i.
2 See Mk xiv. 17 and parallels in Mt. and Lu. In Jn the expression TOI>S
is used, xiii. 5, xviii. i, but all those who are mentioned by name belong to the Twelve.
3 Ib. ill. iii. 4. 4 Ib. V. xxx. 3.
2 1 4 Statements of Irenaeus in regard to John
first and the second epistles which bear the name of John in our New Testament, as by the same John, though apparently he confuses the two Epistles together or conjoins them1. In another place he makes a statement in regard to the length of the Lord's life, which he declares had been derived from John, according to the testimony of " all the elders who in Asia had intercourse with John." He says here also that John " re- mained with them till the days of Trajan," and then he adds that some of these elders "saw not only John, but other Apostles also." He then exclaims : " Which ought we to believe? Such men as these, or Ptolemaeus (the Valentinian teacher against whom he is arguing), who never saw Apostles, nor ever even in his dreams pressed the footprint of an Apostle2?"
Foremost among these "elders" in the mind of Irenaeus stood Polycarp, " who," he writes, " had not only been in- structed by Apostles, and associated with many who had seen the Christ, but had also been placed by Apostles in Asia in the Church in Smyrna as bishop, and whom we also saw in our first age3." In a letter preserved by Eusebius he is still more explicit in regard to his reminiscences. He is writing to Florinus, who had in Rome been advocating Gnostic opinions, and whom he remembered as a young man a few years older than himself, when both were hearers of the venerable Polycarp. He says :
" I distinctly remember the incidents of that time better than events of recent occurrence ; for the lessons received in childhood, growing with the growth of the soul, become identified with it ; so that I can describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp used to sit when he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and his manner of life, and his personal appearance, and the discourses which he held
1 Ib. in. xvi. 7.
2 Ib. II. xxii. 5. The great majority of critics recognise that Irenaeus must by "John" mean the Apostle. E.g. Harnack, Chron. I. p. 657 ("ihn meint Irenaeus unfraglich"); Holtzmann, Einleit. p. 472; Schmiedel, Encycl. Bibl. 1 1. col. 2506; even Delflf, Rabbi Jesus v. Nazareth, p. 68. Bousset, however, treats it as questionable, Die Ojfenbarttng jfohannis, p. 41. I do not think he can have sufficiently considered either (i) the contexts in which Irenaeus refers to John, or (2) what is involved in the allusion to his having leaned upon the breast of Jesus.
3 Ib. ill. iii. 4. I have here translated tv T$ irpurri TJ/XWP ^Xt/rfy, as literally as possible, "in our first age"; see, however, further p. 2156*". on its meaning.
Age of Irenaeus when a hearer of Poly carp 215
before the people, and how he would describe his intercourse with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard from them about the Lord and about his miracles, and about his teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from eye-witnesses of the life of the Word, would relate them altogether in accordance with the Scriptures1."
Once more, in another letter quoted in Eusebius' history, which was written to Victor, bishop of Rome, on the subject of the Paschal controversy, Irenaeus asserts that Victor's pre- decessor, Anicetus, " had not been able to persuade Polycarp not to observe (the day of the Passover), inasmuch as he had always observed it with John the disciple of the Lord and the rest of the Apostles with whom he consorted2."
Irenaeus' trustworthiness, in the statements which have been adduced, must now be carefully considered, for it has been called in question by many critics who fully allow that he speaks in them all of John the son of Zebedee, not of some other John. It will be necessary that we should form a correct idea so far as possible of Irenaeus' age at the time when he saw and heard Polycarp, and of the chronology of his life. In his letter to Florinus he describes himself as "still a boy " when they both used to listen to Polycarp ; and in his work Against Heresies he says that he saw Polycarp eV r>7 Trpcorrj rjfjiwv -f)\iKta, which has commonly been rendered " in our early life3." It has been supposed that he was from twelve to fifteen or, according to other writers on the subject, possibly as much as eighteen years old4. If, however, as in
1 Ap. Eus. H. E. v. xx. 6. I have used the translation by Lightfoot in Essays on Su/>. Rel., p. 97. It would, however, be as lawful to render <?«• iraLSuv by "in boyhood" as by "in childhood," and better, as we shall see, in this context.
2 Ap. Eus. H. E. v. xxiv. 16.
3 Adv. Haer. in. iii. 3.
4 Harnack, Chron. I. pp. 327-8, "Knabe von c. 12 — 15 Jahren." Zahn, Forsch. iv. p. 280, "mindestens ein 12 — 15 jahriger Knabe gewesen"; in Kanon, p. 23, he makes him about 14. R. A. Lipsius, Diet, of Chr. Bio. ill. p. 254, comes to the conclusion that " not the age of childhood, but that of early young manhood ('say about the eighteenth year') will have been the period of Irenaeus' connexion with St Polycarp," p. 254. Lightfoot in Essays on Sup. Rel. p. 265, wrote, "If we reckon his age as from fifteen to eighteen, we shall probably not be far wrong, though the expressions themselves would admit some latitude on either side." In Apost. Frs, Pt 2, I. pp. 448 — 9, he does not speak quite so definitely.
2 1 6 Age of Irenaeus when a hearer of Poly carp
the rendering just referred to, rjXiKia meant simply " age," usage gives no authority, so far as I know, for fixing the limit of 77 7rpo)Trj rf\.LKLa at fifteen. The phrase might possibly designate babyhood or childhood, which are here out of the question. If it was intended to cover a period longer than these, the years down to seventeen or eighteen, when c'^^/Seta, or juventus, began, would naturally be included under it. Nor could it be unsuitable to speak of one under this age as " still a boy."
But rj TrptoTij rjKiKia might according to usage be even more correctly employed to designate opening manhood1. The years from seventeen to thirty were held to form this period of life. Irenaeus himself seems to have it in view in a passage in which he speaks of the ages of man in connexion with the subject of the duration of Our Lord's life, though the meaning is somewhat obscure, owing, perhaps, to the imperfection of the Latin translation2. He says that if Christ had suffered when completing His thirtieth year, He would have been adhucjuvenis, "still a young man," or as we might say, "still in the prime of life " ; he proceeds to observe that it will be generally allowed that " (the age of) thirty years is " (that is, belongs to, falls within) " the first age of the estate of young manhood " — triginta annorum aetas prima indolis estjuvenis — " and that it " (perhaps the indoles juvenis, not the prima aetas indolis juvenis} " reaches to the fortieth year." It would be contrary to all usage to say that the age of thirty was itself the beginning of the time in which a man is a juvenis, and it is inconsistent with Irenaeus' own words just before, where he speaks of one who was thirty as " adhuc juvenis'' I suggest, then, that the phrase 77 Trpwrr) r/KiKia, when used by Irenaeus in regard to a time in his own life, corresponds to prima aetas indolis juvenis, " early manhood," a period which might be considered to last till thirty, though where the emphasis is on Trpcorrj, as in the context in which he is speaking of himself, it is more natural to think of seventeen to twenty3.
1 Cp. Liddell and Scott, i)\iida, I. 2.
2 Adv. Haer. II. xxii. 4.
3 Thus I arrive at much the same result as Lipsius; but he seems to me to
The Value of Irenaeus reminiscences 217
The age of seventeen or eighteen, when he was passing out of boyhood into manhood, might, in short, well be denoted by either of the two expressions which he employs, — that in his letter to Florinus or that in the treatise Against Heresies. He was on the threshold of manhood, but yet he might naturally speak of himself as then " still a boy," especially in writing to Florinus, to whom, as a young man who was already " faring prosperously in the imperial court," he must doubtless have appeared such.
Irenaeus' reminiscences of what he had, when of this age, heard Polycarp teach, must clearly be of considerable import- ance. It is said that he may have been misled as to the presence of the Apostle John in Asia, through Polycarp's having repeatedly spoken of that other John, whom Polycarp may, like Papias, have described as " a disciple of the Lord." I cannot admit that Irenaeus would have been likely to make this mistake, even if he was but twelve to fifteen years old at the time. An intelligent Christian boy of that age could hardly have failed to understand the difference between one of the twelve Apostles, and a man who was, it may be, a personal follower of Christ, but not an Apostle. Still less can Irenaeus have fallen into this error, if he was already a youth of seventeen to eighteen.
It is also urged that as Irenaeus mistakenly imagined Papias to have been a hearer of John the Apostle, instead of the other John1, he may very likely have made a similar mistake as to Polycarp2. His error in regard to Papias is supposed to have arisen through a wrong inference from the work of the latter, which Eusebius corrects3. This is not, it may be observed, a case strictly parallel to the other. One who had derived a wrong impression from, or who imperfectly
misinterpret the passage of Irenaeus discussed above (ib.). He overlooks the word adhuc and supposes that "the age of irais commences with youthful maturity, say about the eighteenth year," and lasted to the thirtieth year. Irenaeus' language does not suggest this, and it is not, so far as I am aware, confirmed by ancient usage generally.
1 Adv. Haer. v. xxxiii. 3, 4.
2 Cp. Harnack, Chron. \. p. 657, who declares that the authority of Irenaeus as regards the question of the truth of the common tradition about the old age of the Apostle John is "eliminated."
3 H. E. in. xxxix. 1—7.
218 The date of Irenaeus birtJi
remembered, a passage in a book, might be able to recall clearly and accurately what he had himself heard in his youth. But, further, Irenaeus' statement that Papias was "a hearer of John " (meaning the apostle) may not have been founded upon the language of the Expositions. Though it was an error, as Papias' own silence shews, it may have been one for which Irenaeus himself was not responsible. He may have accepted a belief that was current. We meet with it, some- times with amplifications, in later writers. These may indeed have derived it from Irenaeus ; but its vitality, in spite of Eusebius' criticism, suggests the possibility that it had an independent root1.
We have still to consider more generally the means of information which Irenaeus had regarding the faith and life of the Church during the period which intervened between his own age and that of the Apostles. For this purpose it will evidently be desirable that we should ascertain, if possible, how far back in the first half of the second century his own birth should be placed.
We have come to the conclusion that he was about seventeen years of age at the time when he and Florinus were together hearers of Polycarp. But in what year of the century was this? There are wide differences of opinion on the subject. Harnack fixes upon A.D. 154, the year preceding Polycarp's martyrdom, while Zahn, not to mention other critics, is for a year earlier by a quarter of a century. The Emperor Hadrian was in Asia in A.D. 129, and the allusion to the "royal court" in the letter to Florinus could, as Zahn urges, thus be explained. We have not nearly such good evidence for any subsequent imperial visit of his or of his successor. Nevertheless, the information which we at present possess does not enable us to say that none such occurred ; indeed, it seems not improbable that Antoninus Pius was
1 See references given by Dr Salmon in Diet, of Chr. Bio. ill. 399; also the argument prefixed to the Gospel according to St John in a Vatican MS. of Ninth century. See Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. Rel. p. 210.
I have already pointed out (p. 169) that while Eusebius is undoubtedly right in distinguishing between John the Apostle, and the other John mentioned by Papias, he may himself be mistaken in saying that Papias was a hearer of the latter and of Aristion.
The date of Irenaeus birth 219
there in A.D. 154. Some doubt, also, hangs over the meaning of the words eV rfj ftao-tXitcy av\fj. Supposing, however, that they do point to the circumstances of A.D. 129, we should get (according to our conclusion reached above) circ. A.D. 112 for the date of Irenaeus' birth (or, according to Zahn, circ. A.D. 1 1 5). Now it is argued that it cannot be placed later than this con- sistently with the indication which he himself gives when he says that the Apocalypse was seen "almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian1." To suppose an interval of even no more than twenty years is, it is urged, to strain to the utmost possible extent the meaning of this language2. It may, however, surely be maintained that the sense of nearness in a case of this kind is relative to the standard of comparison which is in the mind. Now in the context Irenaeus speaks both of Daniel's Vision and of the 6,000 years of human history. Moreover, it is evident that he has a purpose here in insisting on the nearness of the point of time in question. He would seem either to be con- trasting John's Vision with the Vision granted to the much older prophet ; or else (which is on the whole more probable) he desires to bring the more recent prophetic utterance into connexion with the end of the world's probation, which he believed to be approaching. This being so, a space of half a century would not seem to separate him widely from it.
And there are serious objections to the early date for Irenaeus' birth suggested by Zahn. Irenaeus' own language about his relations to Polycarp does not accord with the view that he was a middle-aged man when the latter died. Not only does he in writing to Florinus confine himself to remi- niscences of Polycarp which belong to the period of his own youth, but in the reference which he makes in the treatise Against Heresies to the fact of his having seen Polycarp eV rfj 7Tpa)TT) fjiJLwv r)\uclq., he implies that this had been rendered possible because Polycarp had lived to a great age, and we naturally infer that the latter did not live for many years after Irenaeus saw him3. Again, if Irenaeus was born circ. A.D. 1 12,
1 Adv. Haer. v. xxx. 3. 2 Zahn, Forsch. iv. pp. 281-2.
3 Zahn insists that Irenaeus' reference to his being a boy applies only to the time when Florinus like himself was a hearer of John, and that the phrase in the
220 The date of Irenaeus birth
he was about sixty-five when he went to Rome in A.D. I771. A man of his character, energy and ability must already have become known to the Church generally before he had attained that age, and the terms of the letter in which the Galilean confessors commended him, though not unsuitable for the case of a man still undistinguished, would have been out of place. The time, also, of the composition of his great work Against Heresies, together with all his labours as a bishop, would be thrown into the years of his life between sixty-five and seventy-five.
One other objection to placing the time referred to by Irenaeus in his letter to Florinus so early as A.D. 129 may also be mentioned. From a fragment of a letter of Irenaeus to Victor2 after the latter had become bishop of Rome, it may be gathered— if the title of the extract in the Syriac Codex in which it is preserved may be trusted — that Florinus was still alive (A.D. 189), and that he had recently begun to propagate heretical views by his pen. Accordingly, if the date above mentioned for his intercourse with Polycarp were the right one, he must have first appeared as a heretical writer when he was over eighty. This is clearly improbable3. I find it
Adv. Haer. — tv ry Trpujrri i)\iKia — relates to a considerably later period. "As a young man somewhere between the eighteenth and thirty-fifth year will Irenaeus have enjoyed intercourse with Polycarp" (Art. on Irenaeus in Herzog's Real- Encycl. vn. pp. 136-7. Cp. also Forsch. IV. pp. 279-80). On the ground of this distinction between Irenaeus' two statements he asserts (Kanon I. p. 23) that "an incident in itself unimportant, belonging to the year 129, when as a boy he found himself in the entourage of Polycarp, was vividly present to his mind, and a rich treasure of memories of religious discourses which he had then and later" (the italics are mine) "heard in Asia from the mouth of the venerable representative of the Subapostolic generation was at his disposal" etc. But, even apart from the consideration of the context in which they stand, the words "we saw Polycarp iv rrj TTpur-r} TJ/JLUV ^Xuclp" do not suggest continuous intercourse, or repeated oppor- tunities of hearing, during a period of years.
J Eus. H. E. v. 4, after the persecution in Lyons and Vienne.
a Harvey's Irenaeus 1 1. p. 457, Fragm. xxviii.
3 Cp. Harnack (Chron. I. pp. 321, 325) with whose interpretation of this fragment I agree substantially. Zahn supposes that Florinus was no longer alive at the time when Irenaeus wrote this letter to Victor. But its expressions seem clearly to imply that he was. That he had only recently avowed his heretical opinions is to be inferred from the fact that, according to the fragment, he was a presbyter of the Church of Rome and that no steps had so far been taken to remove him from that position.
I do not think, however, that much stress should be laid on the evidence of
The date of Irenaeus birth 221
impossible, therefore, to assign the early date, which Zahn and some other writers on the subject have done, for Irenaeus' birth. The time when he and Florinus were both among Polycarp's hearers should rather be placed near the close of Polycarp's life. A.D. 150 — 154 may reasonably be taken as limits for it. Later than the early part of A.D. 154 it cannot have been, on account of Polycarp's visit to Anicetus at Rome after the latter became bishop, and his own death in the spring of A.D. I551. Combining this result with that
this fragment. That Florinus is the person referred to in it, as stated in the heading of the extract, may be simply the conjecture of some scribe who recalled Irenaeus' expostulations with Florinus on the subject of his heretical tendencies in the letter given by Eusebius.
1 Harnack selects A.D. 154 for the time referred to in the letter to Florinus, on the ground that it is "not improbable" that Antoninus Pius visited Asia Minor in that year. (See Chron, I. p. 329, n. 2.) The evidence seems to me too slender to justify our drawing inferences from it. On the other hand I do not understand why Lightfoot (Ap. Frs, Pt 2, l. p. 448, n. 2) declares this date to be too late.
R. A. Lipsius (Diet, of Chr. Bio. in. 254) makes a guarded use of the state- ments contained in a note appended to the Moscow MS. of the Letter of the Smyrnaeans concerning the death of Polycarp, which are (i ) that at the time of the martyrdom of Polycarp, Irenaeus taught many in Rome; (2) that Irenaeus himself in his writings asserts that he heard a voice in Rome, at the time of Polycarp's martyrdom, informing him of the fact.
The former statement is put on one side by Lipsius when discussing Irenaeus' age, as clearly it should be, since the Moscow note alleges no authority for it. But even if (2) may be relied upon it does not seem to be of much value for our present purpose. It would prove, indeed, that by A.D. 155 Irenaeus had removed from Asia to Rome, and it is probable, therefore, that he was then not less than eighteen to twenty. But we have already arrived at the conclusion that he may have attained that age by A.D. 155. The statement, however, that he was in Rome at this time is of interest for another reason, and I shall recur to it. See p. 227.
Feb. 23, A.D. 155, has been very generally accepted by recent critics as the date of Polycarp's Martyrdom. Waddington, as the result of a careful exami- nation of allusions in the Orations of the rhetorician Aristides, arrived at the period from the middle of A.D. 154 to the middle of A.D. 155 as that when a Quadratus mentioned by Aristides was proconsul of Asia. This Quadratus was naturally identified with the Statins Quadratus who was proconsul when Polycarp was mai tyred. The argument has convinced many competent judges, among whom I may mention Zahn (ap. Herzog, Real-Encyd. vn. p. 136) and Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt 2, I. p. 656 ff.
More recently W. Schmid (Rhein. Museum, N. F. vol. XLVin. p. 53 f.) has dis- puted the soundness of Waddington's argument, and has contended for a different chronology of Aristides' life, which brings the proconsulship of the Quadratus whom he mentions to A.D. 166. Harnack holds that Schmid has proved his case; nevertheless he adheres to A.D. 155 as the year of Polycarp's Martyrdom on
222 The Elders referred to by Irenaeus
before obtained as to Irenaeus' age at the time in question, we get A.D. 133 to 137 as probable limits for the date of his birth. It may be added that the result which we have reached is in general agreement with the notices of Irenaeus by Eusebius in his history. He first, indeed, mentions Irenaeus among the Churchmen who were eminent in the reign of Marcus Aurelius; but he names him last among them, and he chiefly brings him before us in connexion with the last years of that emperor and the reign of Commodus.
We will now proceed to consider the import and value of the comprehensive references which Irenaeus repeatedly makes in his treatise Against Heresies to the teaching of Elders who had known John, or more generally who had been "disciples of the Apostles." Polycarp was undoubtedly one of these, and the chief figure among them. But Irenaeus, when he so expresses himself, cannot well be referring only to Polycarp, and to what he himself remembered of Polycarp's teaching. Had he, then, himself known others besides Poly- carp who belonged to the first generation after the Apostles? Or if not, from what source or sources does he derive his knowledge of them and of their doctrine1?
In treating of the subject of moral difficulties in the Old Testament2, he quotes at considerable length what used to be said by an individual " elder," whose name he does not give, but whom he had himself heard3, and of whom he says that " he used to refresh us " with his remarks about the ancients (i.e. those under the Old Covenant4). But the descriptions of this " elder " are not free from ambiguity, and it will be well to discuss them first, as there is no doubt about Irenaeus' intercourse with him. Irenaeus calls him first "a certain elder qui audierat ab his qui apostolos viderant,
grounds which are altogether independent of the chronology that may be made out for the life of Aristides, and which are certainly strong. See Harnack, Chron. I.
PP- 334—356-
1 The questions connected with the Elders quoted by Irenaeus are discussed with great fulness by Harnack, Chron. l. note on pp. 333 — 340, and Zahn, Forsch. VI. (1900), pp. 53-94- Cp. also Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. Rel. pp. 158-9, 194 — 202; 217-8; 245-8; 266. Westcott, Canon \\. § 2, pp. 81-2.
2 Adv. Haer. IV. xxvii. — xxxii. i.
3 Ib. xxvii. i. * Ib. xxxi. i.
The Elders referred to by Irenaeus 223
et ab his qui didicerant1 ." The last clause, as it stands, is obscure. Lightfoot supposed that " personal followers of Christ," such as Aristion and John the Elder, were meant by "those who had learned2." But it would be strange that these should be placed after those who had only seen Apostles. It seems more natural to take the words as meaning " those who had learnt from Apostles," or possibly even " who had learnt from disciples of Apostles." A further difficulty arises in connexion with Irenaeus' final notice of this teacher, which runs thus: — " After this manner also used that elder, the disciple of the Apostles, to dispute about the two Covenants, shewing that both are from one and the same God." It is clear that the same "elder" is referred to throughout the section3. It would be strange, therefore, that, if he was indeed himself " a disciple of the Apostles " in the strict sense of the words, Irenaeus should introduce him simply as one who had learned from those who had seen Apostles, and three times subsequently speak of him as " the elder" or "that elder4." It is more probable that, by the title which he at length applies to him, he means only that he taught in full accord with the teaching of the Apostles which he had received at the hands of their immediate followers.
We will turn next to a group of passages in the Fifth Book of the Adversus Haereses in which statements made by the Elders collectively are cited or referred to. In three of these the present tense is used : — "the elders, disciples of the Apostles, say5"; ''those themselves bear witness, who saw John face to face6." It is evident from the tense employed that Irenaeus must have a book before him, or in his mind, in which the testimony of these Elders was recorded7. In the remaining passage we are first told what " the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, remembered that they had heard from him " ; and then we are informed that
1 Ib. xxvii. i. 2 2b. p. 266.
3 Harvey questions this in loc. (xxxii. i); but, with this exception, so far as I have observed, it has been admitted.
4 Ib. xxvii. i, end; 2; xxx. i. In xxviii. i he is merged in a more general description, ostendebant presbyteri.
6 Adv. Haer. v. v. i ; xxxvi. i, 2. 6 Ib. xxx. i.
7 Cp. Lightfoot, ib. p. 196.
224 The Elders referred to by Irenaeus
" Papias also, a hearer of John and companion of Polycarp, an ancient man, confirms these things in writing" in the fourth of the five books composed by him1. It has been asserted that the "also" and the expression "confirms in writing" (677/0^^0)9 eV/^a/jTupet) prove beyond a doubt that in the preceding passage Irenaeus is quoting from an independent, oral source, after which he turns to Papias' book as an additional witness2. But the words have not necessarily this force. Papias, himself a " hearer of John," even by the mere fact of giving in his book what others had reported, might well, in the eyes of Irenaeus, seem to have set his seal to it. But Irenaeus has in view, apparently, a more express confirmation which fully accounts for the expression which he uses ; for he goes on to say that Papias adds the words, credibilia stint credentibus. Irenaeus tells us, at all events, that Papias' book contained the matter in question, and it would be most natural for him to take it thence, even if he was independently acquainted with it. Papias, we know, had made it his business to collect and to record in his Expositions what men who had heard the Apostles related in regard to their teaching, and also the sayings of one whom he called specifically " the elder," and whom he describes as a disciple of the Lord, as well as of another to whom he also gives the latter title. Moreover, the subject of the Millennium and other kindred topics form the theme of the Fifth Book of the Adversus Haereses, and all the statements of the Elders there given by Irenaeus are con- cerned with these ; they had a special fascination for Papias, and we may consequently with considerable confidence refer them to his Expositions as their source3.
Irenaeus makes one other citation from the elders. "All the elders," he writes in this instance, " who in Asia associated
1 Adv. ffaer. v. xxxiii. 3, 4.
2 Zahn, Forsch. vi. p. 89, asserts that this must be evident to everyone "der lesen kann." Both Harnack (I.e. pp. 335-6), and Lightfoot (I.e. 158-9, 197), are among those who "cannot read."
3 See Eus. ff. £. ill. xxxix. 11, 12. A difference between Papias and Irenaeus in the application of the term "elder" must, however, be noted. The former uses it of the apostles and their contemporaries (1. c. 4); the latter of the men of the generation to which Papias himself belonged.
The Elders referred to by Irenaeus 225
with John, the disciple of the Lord, delivered this," namely, that Our Lord when He was crucified had passed the age of a jiivenis and was approaching that of an elder1. The present tense is, it will be observed, again used, and therefore as before a book is in view, and in all probability the same book, the Expositions of Papias, which was a storehouse of such traditions. This one does not, indeed, like the rest, bear on Millenarian beliefs; but Papias did not confine himself to that subject in collecting his materials, interested though he was in it2.
The character of these traditions taken as a whole does not lead us to form a favourable view of their trustworthiness. The one which has been last referred to should not be hastily set aside, even though it may seem to conflict with the impression ordinarily derived from the Gospels, and especially from the Synoptic Gospels, in regard to the length of Our Lord's Ministry. But with the New Testament in our hands it is impossible to suppose that the Millenarian pieces can truly reflect the teaching of the Apostles. The spirit and purpose of those passages of the New Testament in which the influence of similar ideas may be most clearly traced are utterly different. And if Papias received what he reports from many who professed to have heard the Apostles, there must in regard to this particular class of topics have been a lamentable growth of fable and profitless speculation in the Sub-apostolic Age itself.
The references, then, which Irenaeus makes in his work Against Heresies to the statements of the Elders do not enhance his own importance as a depositary of sound information in regard to the preceding history of the Church. He took them from Papias, and what Papias related was, we cannot but feel, of questionable truth. We are entitled,
1 Adv. Haer. n. xxii. 5. Grabe, whom Harvey here follows, introduced Tttura into the text of the Greek fragment derived from Eusebius, on the ground that "the Latin Version has it." See Harvey n. 4 in loc. But the Latin Version has the singular, id ipsum, referring to the one point of our Lord's age, — not the plural.
2 Harnack assigns this citation from the Elders like those in Adv. Haer. bk 5 to Papias' work, 1. c. pp. 334-5. Lightfoot does not, I think, anywhere express an opinion in regard to this one.
S. G. 15
226 Irenaeus viewed more generally
however, to say that in believing what he found in such a book Irenaeus did only what almost anyone in his time would have done, unless a doctrinal bias of a different kind had made the statements in question unwelcome ; and further that his readiness to accept them does not shew that he would have been a bad judge in regard to a simple matter of fact, such as the one with which we are at present concerned, namely whether he had, or had not, heard those whose evidence was of value declare that John the Apostle resided and taught in Asia. Again, it does not appear that Irenaeus had met others, besides Polycarp, who had heard St John. But as a man who was already full grown before A.D. 160, he must at least have known not a few Christians, his seniors, who, when already themselves of mature age, had had opportunities of hearing Polycarp or other men of that generation, and by their recollections his own impressions as to the earlier history of the Church must have been either confirmed, or checked and corrected. The " elder," from whose discourses on Old Testament difficulties he quotes in his Fourth Book, is an example ; and we should judge him to have been a man of excellent sense, by what he is reported to have said. Others Irenaeus may have had no occasion to refer to because they were not teachers or otherwise persons of position. But they would be trustworthy witnesses to plain facts. It is no uncommon thing even for two memories to cover a period of a hundred years, while many doubtless who are now in middle life can remember to have heard their parents, or other elder relatives, and their contemporaries, speak of events and personages of the beginning of the last century of which they in turn had heard from their elders. In this way Nelson and Pitt and Fox would have been real characters to us, even if we had never read of them. We cannot believe that reminiscences of the chief men of the first age of the Church were less dwelt upon among Christians. Other Christian writings also, which have not come down to us, besides Papias' Expositions, were in the hands of Irenaeus. Thus he quotes from an anti-Gnostic writer whom he calls 6 Kpeio-o-cov rffjLwv, " our superior1," and whom he also styles — 1 Adv. Haer. I. praef. 2; xiii. 3; ill. xvii. 4.
as a link with an earlier age 227
for the reference seems to be to the same person — "the ancient dear to God1." What the works which he used contained, we of course do not know, except in so far as he expressly quotes ; but they all helped to give him a knowledge of the beliefs of the Church in the past.
We have an example of the information which Irenaeus had in all probability received from others, and which was of a nature to confirm his own remembrance of Polycarp's language respecting his relations with the Apostle John, in the important statement which he makes as to the ground taken by Polycarp in his conference with Anicetus on the question of Paschal observance. It will be remembered that, according to Irenaeus, Polycarp justified himself by an appeal to the example of John the disciple of the Lord, and the rest of the Apostles, with whom he had lived2. Now, how did Irenaeus know that this was Polycarp's claim ? Sufficient attention has not, I think, been given to this point in the controversy concerning the Asiatic sojourn of St John. Irenaeus certainly stayed in Rome in A.D. 177, and may have been there many years earlier. It has been stated above3 that, according to a note appended to the Moscow MS-, of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Irenaeus mentioned in some writing of his that he was in Rome at the time of Polycarp's martyrdom. Lipsius4 suggests that Irenaeus may have gone there from Smyrna in the preceding year in Polycarp's company. This seems to me unlikely, because, if he had done so, it would have been natural for him to allude to the fact either in Adversus Haereses, III. iii. 4, or in more than one other context. But even if he reached Rome a few months after Polycarp's departure, the visit of the aged bishop of Smyrna would have been fresh in the minds of the Christians of Rome. I should be sorry, however, to lay more stress upon the statement of the Moscow MS. than it will bear. Let us suppose that Irenaeus' visit to Rome in A.D. 177 was his first. Even then the remarkable conference between Polycarp and Anicetus must have been distinctly remembered in the Church of Rome, and Irenaeus, owing to the tie which
1 i. xv. 6. See Zahn's proof that he is the same. Forsch. VI. p. 53 ff.
2 See p. 215. 3 See p. 221 n. 4 Diet, of Chr. Biogr. in. p. 254.
15—2
228 Examination of strictures
bound him to Polycarp, must have felt a peculiar interest in ascertaining as fully as possible what took place. His state- ment then, made to Victor circ. A.D. 190, is strong evidence as to the chief argument actually urged by Polycarp1.
(7 b] The testimony of Poly crates.
In his letter to Victor on the question of Paschal observ- ance, from which some quotations have already been made8, Polycrates writes : — " In Asia great luminaries have fallen asleep who shall arise in the day of the Lord's appearing, in which he comes with glory from heaven and shall raise up all the saints; — Philip, one of the twelve Apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis, and two of his daughters, who to old age remained virgins, and his other daughter who having lived in the Holy Spirit rests in Ephesus ; again, John who reclined upon the Lord's breast, and became a priest wearing the mitre, and a witness, and a teacher ; he sleeps in Ephesus ; and again Polycarp, etc.3" Polycrates, it will be seen, identified the illustrious John, who, he says, was buried at Ephesus, with the beloved disciple of the Fourth Gospel. He, like Irenaeus, must be supposed to be referring to the only John who appears among the disciples of Jesus in the New Testament, the son of Zebedee, who was believed by Irenaeus and others of the contemporaries of Polycrates to be the author of that Gospel4.
Holtzmann, however, who admits that such is the meaning of Polycrates, finds indications in his language of the process by which the tradition concerning John the Apostle had
1 Hilgenfeld touches on this point, Einleit. p. 398. Critics who deny the Ephesine residence of the Apostle John are, so far as I have observed, strangely silent about it.
2 See above, pp. 176-7.
3 Ap. Eus. H. E. v. xxiv. 2, 3.
4 The majority of critics admit that Polycrates, also, intended to refer to John the Apostle. E.g. Harnack, 1. c. p. 669; Schmiedel, 1. c. p. 2507; Holtz- mann, 1. c. p. 474. On the other hand Delff (1. c. p. 69 f. and Das Vierte Evang, p. 2 ff.) and Bousset (I.e. p. 43 f.) maintain that Polycrates did not mean John the Apostle.
on the testimony of Poly crates 229
grown1, through confusion with John the Elder and the attribution to the Apostle — whether they were by the Elder or not — first, of the authorship of the Apocalypse, and subsequently of that of the Gospel. This appears to be speculation of a very precarious kind. Let me take, first, the point that Polycrates "does not call John an Apostle, but places him after Philip, along with Polycarp, Thraseas, Sagaris, Papirius, Melito." Here, according to Holtzmann, "the idea of the Presbyter still exercises an influence." But we ask: Did Polycrates believe the John of whom he is writing to be the Apostle, or did he not ? Holtzmann plainly assumes that he did ; the author of the Apocalypse had been supposed, he tells us, to be John the Apostle since A.D. 1 50. How, then, could Polycrates forget that he was the Apostle, and lose himself even for a moment in some confused sense that he was some one of lower rank? There is, however, in truth no ground for saying that Polycrates does not class John with Philip, but with the men who follow; or that he regarded John as inferior to Philip, simply because he names him later. His mention of John is separated from that of Philip only by that of Philip's daughters. That he should finish off all that was connected with Philip before passing to John is perfectly natural. Moreover two of these saintly women were buried in Hierapolis, the same place as their father ; and it is evident that Polycrates in his enumeration is passing in thought from place to place. This may also explain the order ; some reason that we do not know, or some subtle association of ideas, may have led him to speak of Hiejapolis before Ephesus. Or the fact that Philip had died first would account for the position given to him. Polycrates does not, it is true, say of John, as he does of Philip, that he was " one of the twelve Apostles," but he designates him as "he who leaned upon the Lord's breast," thereby implying that he was not only a member, but the most favoured member of that body. In 8tSacr/caXo9, also, we may well see an allusion to his discharge of his Apostolic office. It is used by St Paul of himself in a manner which implies a great commission and high authority2.
1 1. c. p. 474.
2 i Tim. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. n,
230 Examination of strictures
Polycrates dwells upon the figure of John in a way that he does upon no other. That the language has been moulded by the thought that he was the author of the Apocalypse as well as of the Fourth Gospel, there is no ground for disputing. But this shews only that Polycrates, like his contemporaries generally, believed both works to be by the Apostle John1.
One other point requiring consideration is raised by the fragment of Polycrates. It relates to his statement in regard to the Apostle Philip, and his daughters, two of whom at least grew old as virgins, while the third also "lived in the Holy Ghost," and may or may not have died unmarried. It is natural to imagine that here the Apostle has been substituted for the Evangelist Philip, who (according to the Acts of the Apostles)2 also had daughters, four virgins, who prophesied. Papias made the same, or substantially the same, statement in regard to the Apostle Philip3. Two contemporaries also of Polycrates refer to Philip and his daughters. Clement of Alexandria named Philip as an example of an Apostle who was a married man, and adds that "he married his daughters to husbands4," while Gaius, in his Proclus, referred to four daughters of Philip who were prophetesses and who as well as their father were buried in Hierapolis. In the mention of " four prophetesses " the last-named writer seems to be influenced by the passage in the Acts ; but whether he supposed their father, who was buried at Hierapolis, to be the Evangelist or the Apostle, does not appear8.
1 Delff and Bousset go further than Holtzmann, for they deny that Polycrates himself meant the Apostle John (see p. 228, n. 4, where references are given). Their chief arguments will, I believe, be found to have been sufficiently answered by the remarks on pp. 168 — 171, taken with those above on Holtzmann's view. But it may be well to notice Delff's curious fancy, in which he is followed, though somewhat hesitatingly, by Bousset, that the words 6s ty€vr)0r) ie/>ei>s rb irtra\ov 7re0ope«:t6j signify that John, the author of the Fourth Gospel, was of the Jewish high-priestly family and had once at least officiated as high -priest on the Day of Atonement. He brings forward nothing material either from the Gospels or other Christian sources, or the facts of Jewish history, or customary Jewish modes of speech, which lends the least colour of verisimilitude to this strange hypothesis.
2 Acts xxi. 8, 9. 3 See Eus. H. E. in. xxxix. 8, 9. 4 /£. xxx. i.
5 Ib. xxxi. 4. It may seem, also, that Eusebius (tt>.) confounds the two Philips. It is not, however, clear to me that he does so. He seems rather to quote the different statements and leave them, with the air of a man who does not wish to charge any of his authorities with error, or who is simply puzzled.
on the testimony of Poly crates 231
It is argued, then, that if the Apostle has been substituted in tradition for the Evangelist, who bore the name of Philip, so may John the Apostle have been for John the Presbyter1. The mistake, however, if mistake it was, in respect to the two Philips, may have begun with Papias and been derived by other writers directly or indirectly from his Expositions. It is not possible, as we shall presently see, to explain the supposed error in regard to John thus simply. It must be added that the account given of Philip the Apostle may after all be true. On a point connected with the history of the Church in Hierapolis Papias was an excellent witness. Indeed he may himself have known and gleaned traditions from Philip's daughters themselves. It would clearly not have been a more remarkable coincidence than many which are commonly met with, if both Philip the Evangelist and Philip the Apostle had daughters who were women of some mark in the Church, and some of whom remained to the end of life unmarried. Nor can the possibility be excluded that there may be an error in the Acts of the Apostles. It need not have been due to the author ; the words " the evangelist, one of the seven," might be a gloss, early introduced, which had been suggested by the fact that this Philip is a prominent figure in the early part of the work.
(8) Conclusion.
The various objections which have come before us in the course of this long enquiry, with the exception of the one that is based on the silence of the Sub-apostolic Age to which we will recur, do not seem to have much substance. Nor do they confirm one another and become important through combination, as considerations separately weak may do. Indeed they are to some extent mutually antagonistic. For if it could be shewn that the Apostle John was not an eminent teacher in the Church of Asia, those arguments directed against the authenticity of the Gospel according to St John, which rely for part of their force upon the considera-
1 Holtzmann, 1. c. p. 473. Harnack, 1. c. p. 669 etc.
232 The tradition is supported
tion that Christians who held views really inconsistent there- with, or expressly hostile thereto, belonged to that region, would so far be weakened.
We have seen, also, that there is small reason for sup- posing the character and circumstances of John the Elder to have been such as would have favoured a confusion between him and the Apostle John. If, however, all that is hypothetically imputed to the Elder was actually true of him, is it likely, we may ask, that it would have been transferred to the Apostle? Fame is, it is true, ever busy taking from those that have not and giving to those that have, assigning the plans and the labours and the sayings of the undistinguished to the illustrious, where they have been engaged in the same or similar undertakings, or can be otherwise associated in thought. But all ordinary examples of this are far outdone in the present conjecture. The two men in question were not, it would seem, connected in any way except by having the same individual name, and the supposed result of this single similarity is that the personality of one of them, a man of eminence in the Church of his day, is completely obliterated from memory, within a period of from fifty to eighty years, in the region where he had lived and taught, while the other, who is substituted for him, had scarcely visited it, if he had ever done so, and was a man of widely different character and views.
When allowance has been made for all that can be fairly urged against the value of the testimony of the principal witnesses for the common tradition, they remain excellent ones. Moreover, we have yet to take account of the combined effect of their and other evidence. One very peculiar point in regard to the supposed case of mistaken identity is that different persons agree in it, who cannot have derived it from a common source. Irenaeus, it is said, misunderstood Poly- carp, when the latter spoke of a John who was a disciple of the Lord. But the language of Polycrates would not thus be explained ; the latter cannot have obtained his belief from Irenaeus, who had left Asia Minor many years before, pro- bably when quite a young man, and whose connexion seems to have been with Smyrna, not with Ephesus. Polycrates,
by several independent witnesses 233
indeed, as a man of sixty-five when he wrote the letter of which we possess a fragment, and as one who had had no less than six bishops among his kinsfolk, must have relied rather upon his own knowledge of the traditions of the Church of which he was bishop than upon those of any contemporary.
I have not yet alluded to the evidence of Clement of Alexandria, who relates a story regarding the old age of the Apostle, which was not derived from Irenaeus' work but has been obtained through some other channel, and which presupposes some of the main points in the common tradition1. It will be remembered, too, that in Justin Martyr we have a witness for the Ephesine sojourn of the Apostle John belonging to the middle of the century. For the authorship of the Apocalypse, which he ascribes to the Apostle, implies an intimate connexion with the Churches of Asia. Yet it is plain that his statement is not the source from which later writers have drawn.
The truth of course is that the writers near the end of the second century whom we have cited testify to a belief which was neither peculiar to themselves, nor new at the time when they were writing, but which had long been fully established, and was general and unchallenged. Surely, it is impossible that a mistake of such a nature could have been so early and so widely spread2.
1 See the tale in Qtiis Div. Salv. 42, p. 959, quoted by Eusebius H. E. ill. xxiii.
2 Apollonius, also (circ. A.D. 200), alludes to a miracle wrought by St John at Ephesus (ap. Eus. H. E. v. xviii. 14).
It will be convenient to notice here the view taken by Holtzmann (Einleif. p. 470) of the language of the Muratorian Canon, on the composition of the Fourth Gospel: "Cohortantibus condiscipulis et episcopis suis dixit: 'Conjejunate mihi hodie triduum, et quid cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis enarremus.' Eadem nocte revelatum Andreae ex apostolis, ut recognoscentibus cunctis, Johannes suo nomine cuncta describeret. " According to Holtzmann these words imply that Jerusalem was the place of composition, and that the time was before the dispersion of the Apostles. We should thus have a dissentient voice as to the later years of John at the end of the second or beginning of the third century, which is unlikely and need not be assumed ; for it was commonly believed that other Apostles besides John came to Asia (see e.g. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III. iii. 3; and ap. Eus. H. E. v. xxiv. 16). Moreover, the words of Clement of Alexandria in his account of the composition of John's Gospel in a passage of the Hypotyposeis (ap. Eus. H. E. VI. xiv. 7) imply similar circumstances; yet he in all probability must have supposed it to have been composed in Asia.
234 Many were interested in disputing
But there is more to be said. I have remarked that the belief was unchallenged. This is very significant, for there were three religious parties who would have had a strong interest in challenging it if they could have done so with any hope of success.
First, there were the Gnostics. We have observed the taunt which Irenaeus levelled at Ptolemaeus1. Would not he and other Valentin ians have retorted that Irenaeus' own boasted connexion with the Apostle John through Polycarp was a figment, if they had known, or could have discovered on enquiry, that thirty or forty or fifty years previously the residence of the Apostle John in Asia was unheard of? Or again, if Florinus, who was certainly of mature age when he used to listen to Polycarp, knew or suspected that Irenaeus' memory was at fault when he appealed to what Polycarp had declared in the hearing of them both concerning his inter- course with the Apostle John2, would he not have answered that he remembered nothing of the kind ? It may be said that we have not the Gnostic replies. But we have the treatises on heresies of the later writers on the Church's side, who were only too eager to expose to view anything said by their antagonists which conflicted with ecclesiastical tradition.
Next, the subject of Quartodecimanism may well be viewed in a light different from that in which it has hitherto come before us. We have considered the objection against the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel which this practice has suggested to some minds in our own and recent times, and we have seen no sufficient reason to attach weight to it. We may now observe that no controversy could have been more fitted to test the truth of the whole tradition concerning the later years of St John than that which took place in regard to Quartodeciman observance. One of the principal arguments of the Asiatics for it was, that the Apostle John had lived in their midst and had set them an example. Assuredly, if Victor and his party had felt that they could prove that this assertion was baseless they would have done so; and it could not have been difficult at least to throw doubt upon it, if the legend had taken shape in less than fifty years
1 See above, p. 1 1 4. 2 Ib.
its truth, yet refrained from doing so 235
preceding. So again, if there had been any ground for suspicion that the Quartodecimans at the end of the second century or earlier called in question the Apostolic authority of the Fourth Gospel, their antagonists would have made the most of it ; Irenaeus would have been little inclined to take up their cause, and other writers on heresies would have indicated a connexion between them and the Alogi.
We have finally to notice that these last confirm the tradition in regard to St John by the character of their objections. It never occurred to them to argue that whereas the Fourth Gospel was said to have been composed in Asia, and the Seer of the Apocalypse was in exile off its coast and addressed its Churches, the Apostle John had not lived in those parts.
The belief, then, which we have been examining stands before us as one which is not only attested by various inde- pendent witnesses, who had excellent means of information, nor only as one pertaining to a matter of fact about which widespread mistake would be strange, but over and above all this as one which remained unquestioned, though many would have had a strong interest in attacking it, at a time when it would still have been easy to do so, if it had been ill-founded. It would be difficult to find better reasons for accepting any historical statement whatsoever. The recent critics who think that it has been refuted shew no sign that they have realised the strength of the case for it. The fault has, perhaps, lain originally with " apologists." They have insisted too much on the reminiscences of Irenaeus taken by themselves. It was natural to do this in the first instance ; his testimony seemed so vivid and full of personal interest. The rein was given to the imagination somewhat too freely in picturing his connexion with Polycarp. The critics on the other hand who regard the question from another point of view have become too much absorbed in discovering grounds for doubting Irenaeus. They have failed — a danger to which critics are at all times ex- posed— to place individual facts in their historical setting, and to review the whole evidence in a judicial spirit.
We have still, indeed, to recall the objection based on the silence in regard to the Apostle John before Justin and
236 How the silence of the Sub-apostolic Age
to set it over against that strong tradition of which we have just spoken. The investigator of any set of facts will always desire to attain to a view of them which shall, as it were, reconcile them all, giving to each its value, and he can never feel wholly content so long as he has not succeeded in this. But it is not always possible to do so in dealing with historical problems, any more than it is in the cases of the law-courts or in matters of everyday life. We have to acquiesce at times in a conflict of evidence ; and then we have to exercise our judgment as best we can in deciding on which side the preponderance truly lies. If it must be so in the instance before us, I do not think there ought to be a doubt what the answer should be. In estimating the significance of the early silence we must remember how scanty the remains of the period are. Moreover, the absence of any mention of the Apostle John is very strange only in the Epistles of Ignatius, and there we are forced to recognise that any in- ferences from it may be precarious when we notice how limited and special is the use made even of the name of St Paul. This objection, then, cannot suffice to overthrow the firmly established tradition which we have been considering.
Nevertheless, it appears to me difficult to avoid inferring from the absence of allusions to the Apostle John in writings of the beginning of the second century, that there was a difference — which it is a matter of great interest to notice — between his reputation and influence then and at the close of the century. At this later time men were fast learning, if they had not already learned, to give him a place, as we do to-day, among the greatest masters of the Christian Faith, distinct from, but not inferior to, that of Peter and of Paul.
This position is accorded him mainly as the evangelist of the Fourth Gospel. Now it will be suggested that the change in the estimate formed of him of which I have spoken can be explained, if we allow that he spent his later years in Asia, and suppose that from this circumstance the Gospel which was produced in that region was mistakenly attributed to him, though not before the middle of the century. Thenceforth it will be said his celebrity rapidly grew. It should be remarked, however, that the different parts of the tradition are closely
may possibly be explained 237
connected, that they form one whole in the mind of the Church of the latter part of the second century, and are attested by the same witnesses, who, if they are trustworthy in regard to one point, ought to be so as to others. And I believe that we may view the early silence about the Apostle John in a manner which harmonises more fully with other facts. There is much which tends to shew that the persons of the Evangelists, and the importance of the function which they discharged, were for a time commonly lost sight of, because the minds of Christians were absorbed with the main contents and the outline of that Gospel which had been at first orally delivered1. There is no sufficient ground for assuming an exception in the case of the Fourth Gospel and its author. Unquestionably peculiar reverence must have been felt for the Apostle John if he lingered on among men as the last surviv- ing Apostle. Yet his real influence may have been confined within a narrow circle of disciples who had the mental power and the spirituality to understand his teaching in some degree. To the majority of Christians during his lifetime, and for the first generation or two after his death, his title to honour may not have seemed essentially different from that of Andrew or Philip. Whether he was in the strict sense the author of the Gospel ascribed to him, or it was composed after his death by the aid of records of what he had said, or which actually proceeded from his own pen, here was a legacy of which the value could only be appreciated with time.
Finally, in order that the bearing of the whole tra- dition which we have been discussing, upon the question of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, may be adequately re-
1 This is shewn especially by the manner in which the term "the Gospel" is used as a comprehensive description of the facts concerning Jesus Christ. For some instances see Westcott, Canon, p. 115 n. 2, p. 119 n. i, and Zahn, Kan. I. pp. 842-3. It continued to be so employed long after the plural "Gospels " for the writings containing "the Gospel" had come fully into use, and this even where a statement contained only in one written Gospel was in question, e.g. De Aleatoribus, c. 3, "in evangelio Dominus ad Petrum dixit" etc. The remarkable phrase "Gospel according to (/cara) Matthew" etc. to denote authorship involves in point of fact the same idea. It is the one Gospel in all cases though presented in a special way in each. So, too, " Gospel according to the Hebrews" signifies the Gospel in the form in which it was current among them.
238 The 'verisimilitude of the tradition
cognised, it must be viewed in connexion with statements and indications in the Gospel itself. Reference is therein made to a member of the innermost circle of the disciples of Jesus whose testimony is given, and there are many signs of first-hand knowledge in the book. On the other hand, its characteristics favour the idea that it was composed in some great centre such as Ephesus, where the influence of Greek thought would be felt, and also not earlier than the last decade of the first century. The tradition, therefore, which singles out John the son of Zebedee as the disciple alluded to in it, and which makes it the work of his old age when he dwelt in Asia, after most of the first generation of disciples had passed away, is marked by self-consistency and appropriateness. It may be that in our Fourth Gospel we have the teaching of St John turned to account by the thought and labour of another mind, possibly one of larger grasp. A disciple, whose own intellectual characteristics and training may have determined in greater or less degree the form of the composition, may well have set himself to record therein what he had learned from the venerable Apostle. The early belief as to its authorship may be reasonably explained if he had this kind of connexion with it. But, also, there does not seem to be anything improbable even in the view that it was in a strict sense his own work, if allowance is made for the effects which the experience gained during the years of his residence in Asia would have had upon his mind.
Gains attitude to the Fourth Gospel 239
ADDITIONAL NOTE TO CHAPTER V.
DR J. RENDEL HARRIS AND DR E. A. ABBOTT ON GAIUS' ATTITUDE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
I. It would be a point of considerable interest to ascertain if Gaius was in all respects a representative of the party to which Epiphanius gives the name of Alogi, i.e. if he rejected the Gospel, as well as the Apocalypse of John.
Dr J. R. Harris in a paper published in Hermas in Arcadia and other Essays (1896) has drawn attention (p. 48) to a passage in a Latin transla- tion of Barsalibi's Commentary on the Gospel accg to St John, according to which "the heretic Gaius" charged John with being at variance with the other Gospels in regard to the course of events at the beginning of Christ's Ministry ; it is the objection noted in Epiphanius, Panar. LI. § 4 etc. Dr Harris admits, on the evidence of Syriac MSS., that the name of Gaius here has been in all probability introduced by an editor. Nevertheless he is confident, for reasons which he gives, that the objection quoted was really urged by Gaius. The reasons are not to my mind at all convincing.
(i) He contends that the Heads against Gaius mentioned by Ebed- Jesu was the same work as the Defence of the Gospel accg to John and the Apocalypse, named in the list on the back of Hippolytus' chair in the Lateran Museum, and that it was the work used by Epiphanius in his section on the Alogi.
Now the arguments by which Dr Harris endeavours to prove this seem only to shew that Epiphanius used some work by Hippolytus ; while other considerations may be adduced which are distinctly adverse to the identification proposed, (a) Ebed-Jesu himself, as represented in Assemanus, Bibliotheca Orientalis, ill. p. 15 (see Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt. i, ii. p. 350), distinguished between the two works. I do not, however, lay much stress on this, because the omission of the conjunction, a very slight change in the text, would give, as the title of a single work, Heads against Gaius in defence of etc. (b} Gaius' five strictures on the Apocalypse, which are embodied in Barsalibi's Commentary on that book of Scripture, and which were published in 1888 by Dr Gwynn, are
240 Gains attitude to the Fourth Gospel
all more or less similar in character to those which Epiphanius adduces, but only one turns on the same words of Scripture, and this is in part differently expressed. That there should have been this amount of similarity between the objections of Gaius and those of the party described by Epiphanius, we might have been prepared to expect from Eusebius' references to Gaius' Dialogue against Proclus. But it certainly cannot be assumed that whenever Hippolytus dealt with opinions of this kind he must have directed his argument against Gaius, and that he might not have written one treatise of a comprehensive kind against the party in general, and another specifically against Gaius.
There is yet another possibility; the Heads against Gaius might have been framed by Hippolytus himself, or some other, out of the larger work, and have consisted of the matter pertaining only to Gaius, and this might have comprised only objections to the Apocalypse. Dr Harris himself is constrained to suggest (p. 53) that the Heads against Gaius may have been a summary of a larger work. But the difference between the subject-matter of Barsalibi's extracts in his Commentary on the Apocalypse and Epiphanius' account of the Alogi is not explained by supposing that the Heads was a summary. The facts point to a distinct work, (c) We may infer from Barsalibi that in the Heads the name of Gaius occurred repeatedly. If the same work lay before Epiphanius it is strange that this name should not have appeared in his pages. He would not have desired to suppress it; on the contrary he would have felt satisfaction in gibbeting a misbeliever, (d] Gaius cannot have shewn a disposition to reject the Gospel according to St John in his Dialogue against Produs, with which Eusebius was familiar ; Eusebius could not have ignored so serious a departure from the beliefs of his own time.
(2) Dr Harris lays considerable stress (pp. 48 — 50) on the fact that in the passage in which Barsalibi records the objection of " a certain heretic " to John's Gospel, the reply is introduced with the words " of the holy Hippolytus against him," and that similar expressions introduce the replies in the quotations from the Heads against Gaius. But surely there is nothing in this. It would be natural that Hippolytus, or Barsalibi in quoting him, should give the objection and the answer in a similar manner, even though a different opponent was in question. It may, also, be asked why, if Gaius was meant, the expression " a certain heretic " should have been used, instead of his name being given as elsewhere.
I maintain only that the evidence which we at present possess affords no ground for thinking that Gaius rejected the Gospel according to St John. Fresh evidence might, however, prove that he did so. There is nothing to shew that he accepted it. As some at any rate 'of those with whom he sympathised both in his strong dislike of Montanism and his view of the Apocalypse called in question the genuineness of the Gospel attributed to the Apostle John, there is a certain presumption that he, too, may have done the same. On the other hand, he may have been restrained
Gams attitude to the Fourth Gospel 241
from this by the position — firmer than that of the Apocalypse— which the Gospel held in the general estimation of Christians.
Dr Abbott, in Encycl. Bibl. II. col. 1824, n. 4, writes as follows: — "Ebed-Jesus at the beginning of the I4th century recorded that Hip- polytus wrote a treatise called ' Heads against Gaius,' and Dionysius Bar-salibi quotes from this treatise (along with replies from Hippolytus) objections raised by Gaius not only to the Apocalypse but also to the Fourth Gospel." As he does not support the contention of Dr J. R. Harris with any additional arguments, I may leave the reader to judge how far he is justified in making this confident statement.
II. But if Gaius did dispute the authority of the Fourth Gospel what would be the significance of this? Dr Harris regards him as a "higher critic" who at the beginning of the third century brought objections against the canonicity of that Gospel. He adds, that it is difficult to say " how much is involved in this admission as regards the existence of a previous succession of adverse Higher Critics" (pp. 56-7). The use of the term " higher critics " seems to me misleading, because Gaius and the Alogi were largely influenced by a strong bias of a doctrinal kind, the one thing that higher critics profess, and so far as they are genuine critics try, to be free from.
Dr Abbott remarks (/&) that many find it hard to understand how it should have been possible for the Fourth Gospel to "have been regarded with suspicion by an orthodox, educated, and conservative Christian such as. ..Gaius at the beginning of the third century."
Gaius was no doubt " educated " ; Eusebius speaks of him as Aoyto>- raroy. But the same might have been said of many of the great Gnostic teachers, who were among the ablest men of the second century, or of many a heretic in the third and subsequent centuries. What reason could be given for describing Gaius as "conservative" I do not know, unless it be — though surely it would be a slender one — that he did not reckon the Epistle to the Hebrews among St Paul's Epistles, and that in this, as Eusebius informs us, he shared the common view of his Church. That Eusebius supposed him to be " orthodox" may probably be inferred from his calling him dvrjp eKK\rja-iaa-TiKos. I doubt, however, whether "orthodox" is a strictly accurate rendering of this phrase. The meaning of the word eK/cX^o-tao-rtKos must be determined in part by the context. Our use of the term "a Churchman," in that more limited sense in which we sometimes employ it, to describe one who is not simply a member of the Church, but devoted to Church affairs, seems to correspond very nearly to e'/cKX^o-iao-rtKoy dvrjp. So (Eus. H. E. III. iii. 2, 3, etc.) f«\r]criaa-Ti<os crvyypcxpfvs is "a Church writer," one who writes on ecclesiastical subjects from the Church's point of view. The idea of orthodoxy is, no doubt, implied, but not emphasised.
It is, however, more important to note that Eusebius apparently knew little, if anything, about Gaius beyond what he could gather from the
s. G. 16
242 Gains attitiide to the Fourth Gospel
Dialogue against Proclus. In this work Gaius does not seem to have expressed doubts about the Gospel according to St John. In it he combated the sectarian Montanists, and if he also described himself as a presbyter of the Church of Rome, here would be fully sufficient reason for Eusebius to speak of him as he does.
With regard to Gaius having been a presbyter — which is first definitely stated by Photius1, though Eusebius' language makes it probable — any significance which this fact would have would depend on whether he attempted and was allowed still to exercise his functions, after having expressed doubts about the authority of the Fourth Gospel; and of this we know nothing.
Finally, it is to be observed, that it is of far more importance to know what Hippolytus, a contemporary, thought of Gaius, than what Eusebius did. And there can be no doubt of Hippolytus' opinion, if we suppose that Gaius was one of those who uttered cavils against the Fourth Gospel, and against whom Hippolytus wrote.
I have criticised Dr Abbott's application of the epithets "orthodox" and "conservative" to Gaius because the impression conveyed thereby seems to me to be that Gaius' temper of mind was specially marked by conservatism and love of orthodoxy; while the addition of the epithet "educated" seems to suggest that he knew what he was about in calling in question the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel. I have argued that such a view would not be justified. At the same time it would be a point worthy of note that he should have differed from the Church generally in regard to the Fourth Gospel, while in the main holding its beliefs, as in all probability he did, in other respects. I have (above p. 212) touched upon the question of the significance of such a phenomenon. But it would be interesting to examine more fully the psychology of dissidence. I may here add one or two remarks which may help to bring out more clearly my meaning in the passage to which I have just alluded.
We may note that (i) men generally shew themselves very tenacious of religious beliefs which are commonly held, so far as they know them ; but that at all times individuals, and larger or smaller bodies of men, have shewn a disposition to be independent, and have broken off on one point or another from their co-religionists, without however rejecting the accepted faith as a whole ;
(2) that on some matters differences have been far rarer than on others ; and that from a very early age till quite recently differences among Christians as to the Canon, and especially as to the authenticity of the Four Gospels, have been almost unheard of.
Let us ask what the conditions appear to have been for the occurrence
1 Biblioth. Cod. 48. Photius also relates that he was ordained to be a "bishop of the Gentiles," whatever this may mean. Photius had not seen the Dialogue against Proclus, or any other work known to be by Gaius, and he only repeats the assertions of others about him.
Gains attitude to the Fourth Gospel 243
of dissidence, so far as they have been connected with the nature of the subject-matter. Departures from generally accepted beliefs have been common (a) on points peculiarly difficult of apprehension, where the results of past thought and controversy cannot be understood without special training as well as capacity; or again, (b] where there have been no formal definitions, though there has been a faith widely diffused, and even an instinct, as it were, among Christians to think in the same way.
Now the point that certain books were to be reckoned as Canonical was a simple matter, about which there could be no possibility of doubt or mistake, as soon as the rule had been clearly established. And this probably is the chief reason that during so many centuries, in which Christians have differed on not a few questions of doctrine, there were hardly any instances of the rejection of the authority of the books of Scripture. The fact, then, that some should in the third and fourth quarters of the second century, and possibly as late as the beginning of the third century, have adopted an attitude different from that of Christians generally to the Fourth Gospel, while agreeing with them in other respects, is an indication that the common judgment on the subject of the Canon of the Four Gospels had not as yet had time to acquire that constraining power over all minds which ere long it did.
1 6— 2
CHAPTER VI.
THE POSITION OF THE FOUR GOSPELS AT THE CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY— THE USE OF OTHER GOSPELS— GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.
IRENAEUS, after he has in the first book of his work Against Heresies set forth the doctrines of the Valentin ians and other Gnostics and contrasted their diversity with the unity of the Church's Faith1, and in his second book com- mented upon and criticised them in order to lay bare their true purport and their inconsistencies, proceeds in the third book to demonstrate the contrariety between these opinions and the truth delivered by the Apostles. The Apostolic teaching is, he declares, known from the Rule of Faith, the tradition of sound doctrine in the Churches which they founded, where it is guarded by an orderly succession of chief pastors, responsible for preserving it in purity and integrity, and also from their writings. Upon the former means of information Irenaeus insists clearly but briefly. It is with the latter that he mainly occupies himself, and he begins with the Gospels. "The Lord of all gave to his Apostles the power of the Gospel," and they not only preached it, " all alike and severally," but two of them set it forth in writing, while two immediate disciples and companions of chief Apostles also recorded what they had heard them preach. No one of these four presentations of the Gospel can be dispensed with, while no other is to be added to them. This Fourfold Gospel held together by One Spirit is like the Order of the Universe in its completeness, compactness and strength. The Divine Artificer, the Eternal Word, who sits upon the Cherubim and holds all things together, gave it to us after He
1 For this contrast see esp. I. ix. 5 and x. i, 2 and xxii. i, 2.
Irenaeus on the Fourfold Gospel 245
had been manifested to men. Its unity in diversity is like that of the four living creatures upon whom His Chariot-throne rests, and who move as by one impulse, though their faces are turned in different directions and they have various forms1. This sublime view of the Divine power and true harmony of the Four Gospels is probably in part Irenaeus' own. But there can be no doubt, from his whole mode of expressing himself, that in his statements regarding the origin and unique authority of these four he is repeating the common belief, so far as he was acquainted with it, of the Church of his day. It will be necessary that we should ascertain as accurately as we can how far his knowledge is likely to have extended, and what confirmation his evidence receives from other witnesses. Irenaeus could answer for the Churches of Gaul, of the chief of which he was himself bishop. But he had first-hand knowledge, also, of the faith and practice of the Churches of Rome and of the province of Asia. We may safely conclude that his view of the Four Gospels did not seriously differ from theirs. He points to them, on the ground that they were founded by Apostles, as affording a standard by which other Christians might try their own belief'2. He does not, indeed, directly cite them to prove the particular point that such and such writings are Apostolic ; but inasmuch as he associates very closely the Apostolic doctrine and the Apostolic writings, and lays great stress on the Apostolic authority of the Four Gospels, he must have felt confident of the support for his assertions about the latter, which the testimony of the Churches of Apostolic foundation would supply2. Tertullian, also, refers to Churches having this prerogative, and in particular to Rome. He, moreover, does so for the express purpose of establishing the genuineness of the Four Gospels in the form in which the Church read them3. Asia he may, perhaps, have mentioned in consequence of his familiarity with Irenaeus' treatise. But as to Rome he could not but have independent infor- mation, whether he had himself visited it since his conversion
1 I have above stated briefly the argument of the opening portion of Adv. Haer. in.: see esp. chh. i. — iv. and ix. — xi.
2 Adv. Haer. in. iii. i — 4. 3 Adv. Marcionem IV. 2 — 5.
246 The Four Gospels at
or not ; for there was constant political, legal, and commercial intercourse between the province of Africa and the imperial city, which must have led to intercourse even at this time between the Christians of the two places. " What," Tertullian asks, " do the Romans to whom both Peter and Paul left the Gospel, signed by their own blood, sound forth hard by?1" His evidence then is of value not only as to "Africa" but also as to Rome.
Clement of Alexandria in one passage of his Stromateis in controverting an erroneous opinion assumes the difference between the authority of the Four Gospels and other writings professing to be Gospels, as authorities for the teaching of Christ2. As Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria he may clearly be taken to represent the position which would be generally accepted in the Church there, when he argues in this manner. Clement himself had travelled much in search of knowledge before he came to Alexandria, and from various highly revered teachers in Greece, in Magna Graecia, in Coele- Syria and Palestine, had learned " the true tradition of the blessed doctrine which had been handed down from father to son direct from the holy Apostles Peter and James and John and Paul3." Further, the Church of Alexandria itself, seated in a great emporium of commerce and of letters, must have been in touch with many other Churches. Between it and the Greek Churches of Palestine there were intimate relations4. The silence, therefore, of Clement as to any divergencies between different Churches in their estimate of the Gospels is not without significance.
The earliest regular list of New Testament writings which has come down to us, known as the Muratorian Fragment on tlu Canon, was in all probability composed at Rome, or somewhere in its neighbourhood, in the last decade of the
1 " Quid etiam Romani de proximo sonent, quibus evangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine suo signatum reliquerunt?" Adv. Marcion. IV. § 5.
2 Strom, in. xiii. p. 553. 3 Strom. I. ii. p. 322.
4 We might have expected as much from their comparatively near neighbour- hood, and the easy means of communication that there must have been. But it is also expressly stated in the letter of the Churches of Palestine on the Paschal question (ap. Eus. H. E. v. xxv.) that they annually fixed the time for the Paschal festival in concert with the Church at Alexandria by correspondence.
the close of the Second Century 247
second, or first of the third century1. It agrees with the Canon which has been generally received, saving for the omission of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and possibly of the Third Epistle of St John, and the inclusion of the Apocalypse of Peter, with regard to which at the same time it allows that some raised objections. Lightfoot conjectured that it was by Hippolytus. This must be considered doubtful, but in any case it is a weighty document2.
The writings unquestionably by Hippolytus which are extant leave no room for doubt that he assigned the same place to the Four Gospels which the three other eminent writers whom we have mentioned did ; but they do not happen to contain any express statement on the subject.
1 Circ. A.D. 170 has very commonly been assigned as the date of the compo- sition of the Muratorian Fragment, on the ground of the allusion in it to ther Shepherd of Hernias as written "in our time, when Pius was bishop" (i.e. circ. A.D. 139 — 154). This language, however, clearly need not imply more than that the author of the document was born during this Episcopate, and if we place his birth at the very beginning of it, in order to get as near as we can to the probable date of the Shepherd (see above pp. 34 — 41), he might still have. been writing considerably later than A.D. 170. His reference to the Cataphrygians (i.e. the Montanists) is inconsistent with such an early date, for they cannot have been regarded as heretics then, or for several years afterwards, in the West; Zahn thinks not before circ. A.D. 210 (Kanon, n. pp. 135-6). But the evidence hardly seems to justify so much precision as this. Lightfoot does not go into this point ; but he supposes this Canon to have been one of the earliest works of Hippolytus, whose literary activity, he holds, began circ. A.D. 185 — 190 (Ap. Frs, Pt i, n. p. 413). Its ascription to Hippolytus is a clever conjecture, but is not free from difficulty. The case for (Lightfoot, ib. p. 411 f.), and against (Zahn, ib. pp. 137-8), this view should be compared. It is probable, however, that the author resided in Rome or its neighbourhood, on account of the familiarity shewn with a fact which would be best known to a Roman Christian, and the manner in which it is referred to.
2 The Tract De Aleatoribus (at one time mistakenly attributed to Cyprian) also supplies evidence as to the Scriptures acknowledged at Rome in the last decade of the second century if Harnack is right in his view of the work, Texte u. Untersuch. v. i, p. 82 ff. It would take too long to discuss here the time and place of its composition ; but we may note that the words of the Lord to Peter at Jn xxi. 15, and also the sayings at Mt. xii. 32 and vii. 23 (De AL 3 and 10), are quoted as contained "in evangelic, " and several phrases are also introduced from these Gospels. The Epistles of St Paul are, we may add, repeatedly quoted, and the First Ep. of St John once. The Shepherd of Hernias is quoted as " Divine Scripture." (Sim. ix. 31, 5 f . ap. De AL ch. 2.) The author in his attitude to this work presents a contrast with the writer of the Muratorian Canon. The source of two sayings attributed to Christ (De A I. ch. 3) cannot be identified.
248 The Area within which the authority
One or two points in the few remains which we possess of the literary labours of the learned and acute Julius, surnamed Africanus, who seems to have been a few years older than Origen1, may also be suitably noticed here. He passed a great part of his life in Palestine, and was evidently a man of influence. His famous theory for harmonising the gene- alogies of Our Lord in St Matthew and St Luke2 arose out of a profound sense of reverence for each of the Gospels. Again, he appears to have deduced the day of the month on which the Crucifixion took place from St John's narrative. " The Hebrews," he writes, "keep the Passover on the fourteenth day of the Moon. But the events regarding the Saviour happened on the day preceding the first day of the Passover3." He seems to have also held that Christ's Ministry lasted only for one year ; but he resembles herein many who undoubtedly received the Gospel according to St John. The omission of TO irda-^a at Jn. vi. 4 was connected with this opinion4.
All the evidence which we have considered relates to the Church in the Graeco-Roman world. For some parts even of this area it is less direct and more scanty than we could have wished. Yet in view of the prominence of the men whom we have cited, the diversity of their associations, the nature of their statements, and the communications which passed be- tween Churches within the boundaries indicated, we can hardly be mistaken in believing that the authority of the Four Gospels was generally acknowledged in this portion of the Church.
In order, also, to compensate for the incompleteness of the information belonging strictly to this epoch we may fairly call in Origen, the Church's first great commentator upon the text of Holy Scripture, who began to teach in Alexandria soon after A.D. 202°. He paid his first visit to Palestine circ. A.D. 215, and taught there under the patronage of the bishops of Jerusalem and Caesarea ; subsequently he took up his abode at the latter place and spent the last twenty years of
1 Diet, of Chr. Bio. I. p. 54.
2 Ep. ad Aristidem ap. Routh, Rel. Sacr. n. p. 228 ff.
3 Fragment of his Chronicon. Ib. p. 297.
4 Cp. Note by Hort in App. to Westcott and Horfs Gk Test. p. 77.
8 For this and the following dates and facts in regard to Origen see art. by Bp Westcott, Diet, of Chr. Bio. IV. pp. 98—101.
of the Four Gospels was established 249
his life there (from circ. A.D. 231), almost continuously. He was widely looked up to, and consulted from many quarters. At some time between A.D. 226 and 230, he visited Achaia, having been called in to combat some erroneous opinions there. His pupil Gregory Thaumaturgus became bishop in Pontus. About A.D. 237 he stayed in the Cappadocian Caesarea at the pressing invitation of its eminent bishop Firmilian, who also journeyed to Palestine to pay him a visit. Now Origen in one of his later works speaks of the Four Gospels as those which alone are undoubted throughout the whole Church1. And his words derive force from his wide knowledge of the Church of which the facts that have been enumerated give some idea.
But what are we to say of the Church beyond the limits that have been above specified ? Irenaeus himself in an early passage of his work speaks of the Common Faith shared by Christian believers who speak various tongues, the One Truth held by the Churches founded among Germans, Iberians, Celts, in the East, in Egypt, in Libya, and in the middle parts of the earth ; but he makes no reference to translations of the Scriptures into divers languages2. In a later passage he alludes to the many nations of those barbarians who believe on Christ, who without ink or parchment have salva- tion written in their hearts by the Spirit, and diligently keep the ancient tradition of faith (as distinguished from the written word)3. He is, perhaps, thinking mainly in this second passage of comparatively uncivilised tribes round the western and northern borders of the Roman Empire. The question, what versions of the Scriptures were made for the benefit of converts of these races, and how soon they were made, is an interesting one in itself, but has little bearing on our present subject. In any case they, like the latinised province of North Africa, received both the Faith and the Scriptures from the Greek-speaking Churches founded by Apostles, or by their comrades before the close of the Apostolic Age, in the
1 In the first book of his commentary on Matthew, quoted by Eusebius, H.E. VI. xxv. 4. "Trepi TOW reffffdpwv evayyeXlwv, a /cai p>bva. avavTippr^Ta e<mv ev ry birb rbv ovpavbv tKK\t)fflq. roO OeoO."
2 Adv. Haer. I. x. 2. 3 Ib. III. iv. i.
250 The Eastern portions of the Church
chief cities of the Empire. Again, the Coptic and Libyan Christians may have received their Christianity through Alexandria. As to this, however, some doubt may be felt ; it is possible that they might have been evangelized in some other way. This point may be considered in connexion with the Gospel according to the Egyptians. But there were Christians in the East, whose belief and practice it is of far greater importance to consider : (i.) The Hebrew Christians who, not only after the taking of Jerusalem by Titus, but after the failure of Barchochab's revolt and the decree of Hadrian in A.D. 135, which excluded all persons of Jewish nationality from the city of Jerusalem, remained scattered through Western Palestine, and were probably settled in larger numbers to the East of Jordan ; (ii.) the Syrian Church of Mesopotamia and the remoter East. Both these portions of the Christian world were cut off from the Greek and the Latin Church by the barrier of difference of language and in part by difficulties of communication of other kinds. They had an independent history, and the former, at least, the conscious- ness of a peculiarly close connexion with the Church of the first days. Did these circumstances affect, and if so in what way and how far did they affect, their attitude to the Four Gospels ?
(i.) The evidence of Eusebius and of Jerome, both of whom knew Palestine, leaves no room for doubt that, among the Hebrew Christians, there was one gospel only which held a position of authority and was in common use, namely the writing described by the two writers just named, and by others, as the Gospel accg to the Hebrews1.
1 The character and contents of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews have been treated with admirable thoroughness and clearness by Zahn, Kan. II. pp. 642 — 723. On the other hand he does not bring the conclusions reached in his special study of the subject very effectively into relation with the history of the Canon (ib. i. pp. 776-7). Harnack, also, has discussed this subject at considerable length, Chron. I. pp. 625 — 651. On several points he agrees with Zahn, whose investiga- tion of it elicits from him a general commendation. (Ib. p. 631.) Their chief differences of view will appear in the course of the following pages. The materials for the study of the subject are collected by Harnack, Gesch. d. Altchrist. Lit. I. i. pp. 6 — 10. Zahn, however, arranges Jerome's statements in the most satisfactory manner. Ib. n. pp. 650 — 653, n. The following earlier discussions may also be mentioned — Hilgenfeld, Append, to Nov. Test, extra Canon recept. pp. 5 — 31,
n
The Gospel according to the Hebrews 251
Eusebius in his most comprehensive passage on the New Testament Canon refers to this work, and observes that "those who from among the Hebrews have received Christ take delight in it especially1." With this we may compare his remark in regard to Hegesippus2, to which we have already had occasion to refer in an earlier chapter, that he shewed himself to be a Hebrew convert by (among other things) his quotations from the Gospel accg to the Hebrews.
In his chapter on the heresy of the Ebionites he, like Origen in a well-known passage3, distinguishes between two classes of them, and marks as the chief difference the denial of the birth of Christ from a Virgin by the one kind and its acknowledgment by the other. He says nothing as to any Scriptures accepted by the former, more extreme, sort ; but with regard to the second more moderate sort, he says that they " rejected all the epistles of St Paul, and that the only Gospel they used was that according to the Hebrews, while they thought little of the rest4." Among those whom Eusebius describes by the inclusive term of Hebrew Christians there were doubtless those whom he would not have called Ebionites. Like Hegesippus, they had mixed with Gentile Christians, and their spirit was not so exclusive as that of many of their fellow-believers of their own race. They may have learned to appreciate to some extent the Gospels which were in use among Christians generally, so that they could not have been described with justice as " making small account of" these. Nevertheless they very naturally retained special affection for that Gospel which they had long learned to regard as peculiarly their own.
From Jerome we get a similar impression as to what had been, if it was no longer in his day, the position of this Gospel. During the interval of about three-quarters of a century
1866; E. B. Nicholson, The Gospel accg to the Hebrews, 1879; R. Handmann, 1888, Texte imd Untersuch. v. 3. Salmon, Introd. to N. T. ch. 10, where, however, the subject is too much mixed up with the question whether St Matthew had a Hebrew original.
1 H. E. III. xxv. 5.
2 H. E. IV. xxii. 7. See above, pp. 154, 157.
3 c. Celsum v. ch. 61.
4 H. E. in. xxvii.
252 The Gospel according to the Hebrews
between Eusebius and Jerome all Jewish Christians who had not been absorbed into the Catholic Church had been driven into a decidedly separatist attitude. The later writer does not, as the former seems to do, refer to the practice of Hebrew Christians whose ecclesiastical position was a more or less ambiguous one. He became acquainted with the Hebrew Gospel through those whom he calls " Nazarenes1," and he speaks only of their use of it in his own day. But he distinctly implies that in this respect — we need not stay to enquire how far it may have been the case in other respects also — they truly represented the body of Hebrew Christians of an earlier time. He describes the writing in question as 'the Gospel of the Hebrews, " which the Nazarenes use even to this day*"
This Gospel should, therefore, be regarded not as a sectarian — an "Ebionite" or "Nazarene" — but a national Gospel.
We must presently enquire how far it was known to, and how it was regarded in, other circles outside those of the Christians whose mother tongue was Hebrew (or Aramaic)3. But it will be generally admitted that its chief sphere of influence was among them, and that here, or among some of the relics of them, it may probably have retained its place till the time of their final disappearance, while its use in other parts of the world had at all times been, to say the least, very restricted.
It will be suitable, however, even at this point to discuss the relation of this Gospel to the Canonical Gospels, and especially to the Greek St Matthew, in point of contents and authenticity. It is natural to suppose that the truest traditions regarding the origin of the Christian faith would have been found among the Hebrew Christians of Palestine at the end of the second century and even to later times. I believe, however, that this idea is to a large extent mistaken. In the first place it is to be remembered that the evangelistic efforts of the Apostolic Age itself were in the main directed to the world of Greek civilisation. Not only did St Paul and his com-
1 De Vir. III. 3.
2 Adv. Pelag. in. 2. Cp. Comm. In Ezek. on xvi. 13, and xviii. 7.
3 See below, p. 261 ff.
The Gospel according to the Hebrews 253
panions penetrate ever deeper and deeper into it, but he was followed there in course of time by some of the Twelve1. Other of the first disciples, or of their immediate followers, probably also found a home there. Thus the testimony of the earliest generation of believers was fully delivered in Ephesus and Rome and other cities of the Graeco-Roman world. Next, as to the conditions likely to be favourable or unfavourable to the faithful embodiment in writing of the facts and teaching of the Gospel, and the preservation of the record or records unaltered. The Church in Jerusalem lost its head, James the Lord's brother, in A.D. 62-3 2. According to the statements of Eusebius derived from Hegesippus, another bishop was not appointed till after the taking of the city eight years later3, but from that time till the taking of the city by Hadrian in A.U. 135, after Barcochab's revolt, a succession of bishops, all of them believers who were " of the circumcision," presided over a Church of the same character4. Hadrian's edict which forbade any circumcised person to approach the city put an end to this Jewish- Christian Church for ever5. Henceforth the Church there was Greek, as it was already, or soon afterwards became, in Caesarea and other cities along the coast and in other parts of Palestine. The Hebrew Christians who had been scattered through the land, or who had fled beyond Jordan, formed no doubt little communities ; but they had no common centre, and were not united by any common organisation, so far as we know; and we should probably have heard of it if there had been such. During the period indeed from the outbreak of troubles, A.D. 62, till long after the suppression of Barcochab's revolt, they must often have been sorely harassed by political convulsions and by the persecutions which they had to endure at the hands of their compatriots who did not believe in Jesus. Safeguards against the depravation of their traditions
1 For Simon Peter, see Gal. ii. u; i Cor. i. 12, iii. 22, ix. 5; Clem. Rom. 5 ; Ignat. ad Rom. 4, etc. In the phrase r? «/ Ba/SiAwi/t at i Pet. v. 13, the allu- sion is probably to the Church in Rome, the mystical Babylon. For John, the son of Zebedee, see above ch. v. We have also seen that there are traces, though less distinct ones, of the presence of other Apostles in Asia Minor, p. 233 n. 2.
2 Eus. H. £. II. xxiii. ; Joseph. A.J. xx. 9.
3 Eus. H. £. in. xi. 4 H. E. IV. v. 5 Ib. IV. vi.
254 The Gospel according to the Hebrews
were under these circumstances wanting, such as the Greek Churches possessed, combined as they were, in a manner which left individual responsibility to each for the care of a common treasure. It may be doubted, also, whether the point of view and mental characteristics of the Hebrew Christians made them the better guardians. It needs to be borne in mind that, if in studying Christianity among the Greeks we ought, in order that we may not be misled as to the original teaching, to be on the watch for, and to distinguish, elements which have been introduced from other systems of thought, so, on the other hand, the truth was in danger of impoverishment and even distortion when handed on by men of little education and of merely average intelligence and depth of character. Insensibly they would come to omit or misrepresent portions which they did not understand ; while they might accept incongruous and childish additions. More- over, it must always be the case that those, who do not perceive the real scope of a new truth, lose more and more of its spirit. Hebrew Christians suffered in this way, doubtless in very different degrees, but all to some extent. It should not, therefore, be assumed that a Gospel in use among the Hebrews was probably more primitive in its general substance and character than the Greek Gospels. Even though in its origin it might be Apostolic, or belong to the Apostolic Age, its form might have been more or less seriously affected, in the lapse of no long time, by the causes which have been indicated.
Turning to the actual quotations from the Gospel accg to the Hebrews, which we possess, I must class myself with those who think that most of them have the appearance of being " secondary " accounts, when compared with the narratives of the Four Gospels. I shall not, however, attempt to examine them here in detail, as it has been done often before by critics who have approached the subject from different points of view and have arrived at different con- clusions1. I will content myself with making a few remarks upon the treatment of the subject by Harnack, the latest
1 See especially Zahn's discussion, Kan. 11. p. 685 ff. and Harnack, Chron. I. p. 643 ff.
The Gospel according to the Hebrews 255
writer upon it. He rightly endeavours to judge each passage on its own merits1. Even if we are convinced that the work as a whole was less authentic than our Gospels, we may admit that it may have contained sound additional information on certain points, and have been in certain particulars more accurate. According to Harnack thirteen of the fragments are in the nature of things indecisive ; two belong to the same stage in the formation of tradition as the correspond- ing parts of the Canonical Gospels ; another is perhaps in one respect less, and in one more, original ; yet another ought not to be called less original ; and five are distinctly more so. He allows none in which the Canonical Gospels have clearly the advantage. I cannot admit the validity of two of his canons — the only two which he distinctly states. They appear in the following instances, (i) In the Gospel according to the Hebrews the account of the Baptism appears to have been introduced with the words, " Lo the mother of the Lord and his brethren said to him : ' John the Baptist is baptizing for the remission of sins ; let us go and be baptized by him.' He, however, said to them : ' In what have I sinned, that I should go and be baptized by him ? unless perchance that very thing which I have said is ignorance.'" Harnack observes that the question is here left open whether Jesus was convinced or not of His own sinlessness, and remarks that this ambiguity might have been removed from, but would not have been introduced into, the original form2. It seems to me that there would be force in this argument if we were comparing writings and traditions which belonged to the same world of thought and feeling. But seeing that, in the present instance, we have to do with two worlds, in which the history of the Christian Faith had been widely different, there is no good ground for maintaining that the point of view implied in the one account is earlier than that in the other. To assume that the more contracted conception of Christ's Person and Character and Work, existing among Hebrew Christians, is more original than the more exalted one of the Church Catholic is at all
1 Chron. I. p. 648.
2 Ib. p. 648, n. 2.
256 The Hebrew Gospel and St Matthew
events to beg questions which deserve the most careful in- vestigation.
(2) He considers that the touch in the account of the man who had a withered hand, that he was a mason, which of course made his case the harder, is a sign of greater originality, because the vividness of the narrative is thereby increased1. I believe that to most minds this will seem rather to be an example of legendary growth, and that the style of Apocryphal Gospels which are generally allowed to be later, even much later, than the Canonical, bears out this view. There are two other instances which Harnack decides in favour of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews on the same principle.
Ancient writers naturally quoted the Gospel accg to the Hebrews for the most part where it differed from the Four. But how glad we should be to know the extent to which its contents were the same as theirs, and in particular as St Matthew's!
The three earliest writers who mention this Gospel, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius, make no refer- ence to its being related in any way to the canonical St Matthew. The statement of Irenaeus that the Ebionites used St Matthew, and that of Epiphanius to the same effect, but with the addition that " they call it the Hebraic Gospel2," may rest on some knowledge indirectly obtained that there was a similarity between these two works, or may have arisen simply out of the belief that Matthew wrote in Hebrew. It is Jerome's language only that is of importance in regard to the point now before us. In a well-known passage of his De Viris Illiistribus he states that St Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew was to be found in the library at Caesarea, while it is plain from the context that he is speaking of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews, a copy of which had been first shewn him by Nazarenes at Beroea and which he had trans- lated into Greek and Latin3. It is evident from his own quotations from this writing, and from his language about it elsewhere, that he must not be understood to mean that the
1 Chron. i. p. 649 (6).
2 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. xxvi. 2; III. xi. 7; Epiphanius, Panar. xxx. 13. 8 De Vir. Illustr. 2, 3.
The Hebrew Gospel and our Gospels 257
Greek Gospel was a close rendering of it. Nevertheless, there must have been a sufficiently strong resemblance be- tween the two to impress Jerome with the idea that they were substantially the same. Moreover, several of the words and incidents from the Hebrew work more or less clearly belonged to narratives the same as, or similar to, those in the Canonical Matthew, and in their phraseology bear marks of relationship to that Gospel as well as in a lesser degree to peculiarities in St Luke1.
I will briefly discuss one question of considerable interest, in regard to which Harnack differs from Zahn, namely, whether the Gospel accg to the Hebrews contained an account of the Birth and Infancy of Christ2. In favour of the supposition that it did, there is, first of all, the general consideration that, if this opening part had been wanting, it is extremely unlikely that Jerome could ever have spoken of the writing as identical with St Matthew. He could scarcely himself have imagined that it was so, and he certainly must have feared the retorts of those who might make further enquiries as regards the Gospel through Hebrew Christians, if they could not read Hebrew themselves. Lacunae later in the book might be overlooked ; but the omission at the very forefront of narra- tives which in the Canonical Matthew universally excited the deepest interest would at once attract attention3. Jerome must, at least, have guarded himself against this danger by throwing out the suggestion that the Jewish Christians had in this respect mutilated the Gospel. One or other, also, .of those learned opponents of Jerome in the Pelagian con- troversy, who attacked him on the score of his references to and citations from the Hebrew Gospel, declaring that he had brought in a fifth gospel4, must, one would think, have dis- covered and made use of this fact about it, if such it was. But further, there are allusions by Jerome — such they are if his language is to be understood in its natural sense — to
1 Harnack draws attention to the relation to Luke, Chron, I. p. 648 ff.
2 Cp. Zahn, Kan. n. 686-8.
3 Note the interest shewn by Irenaeus in the diverse beginnings of the Gospels, Adv. Haer. in. xi., and cp. the language of the Muratorian fragment on the Canon.
4 Julian of Eclanum and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Cp. Zahn, ib. p. 654, notes i, 2.
S. G. 17
258 The Hebrew Gospel contained
passages in the Hebrew Gospel which corresponded to the Greek of Matt. ii. 5, 15, 23. In his notice of the Apostle Matthew in the De Viris Illustribus, to which I have already referred, Jerome after mentioning the Hebrew Gospel which he had found relates one interesting fact about it. There is a whole class of quotations in the Greek Matthew which does not agree with the LXX. Jerome informs his readers that the Hebrew Gospel takes them not from the LXX. but from the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, and he proceeds, " of which are those two ' Out of Egypt have I called My Son,' and * He shall be called a Nazarene'." Clearly his words imply that these citations themselves were contained in the Hebrew Gospel. He wishes to shew that this work, which he is proud to have discovered and to be able to read, may be of use in suggesting or confirming a true inter- pretation of the canonical St Matthew, as for instance in the case of these two famous quotations which had caused difficulty to those who knew the Bible only in Greek or Latin. Again, in his Commentary on St Matthew, at ii. 5, he notes that in the Hebrew (in ipso Hebraico) we read "Judah" not "Judaea," and he goes on to remark that in the quotation from Micah also the word is "Judah." A comparison with the former passage in which Jerome speaks of ipsum Hebraicum would of itself lead us to suppose that here, as there, he means thereby not the Old Testament but the Hebrew Gospel. But, indeed, as Zahn has pointed out, Jerome expressly adduces the Hebrew in this second case, not in connexion with the prophecy, but with the evangelist's words which introduce it ; while it would also have been useless to appeal to the Old Testament in this instance, since the words there stand Bethlehem Ephratah, not "Bethlehem of Judah1."
Harnack2, however, holds that the Gospel accg to the Hebrews did not contain an account of the Birth and Infancy of Jesus. But (i) he does not face those considerations of a general kind which have been urged above. (2) He adopts the view of some earlier writers that in the passages which
1 Ib, p. 652 n.
2 Chron. I. p. 643, n. 2 f. " Eine zweite wichtige Frage, etc." See also p. 634 n. and 648 (i).
the story of the Birth and Infancy 259
have just been discussed Jerome is referring to the Hebrew of the Old Testament ; but he has really little to say in support of this opinion except that Jerome may have meant this, considering the sort of writer he was. In reply I would say that he only might have done so, if he was extraordinarily inconsistent and thoughtless in his reasoning in two passages in which for once there are signs of much care and discrimi- nation. Harnack also relies on the two following arguments. (a) Jerome in his commentary on Isa. xi. I appeals to "learned Hebrews," not to the Hebrew Gospel, in order to bring out the reference in the citation, " He shall be called a Nazarene." But there is surely little force in this as an objection to the supposition that the Hebrew Gospel contained an equivalent for the latter words. That it should do so was a point of interest, to which, as we have seen reason to think, he draws attention on another occasion. It was easiest when the sentence was read in Hebrew to see the connexion of the title " Nazarene " with the netzer (branch) of Isa. xi. i. But even in the Hebrew Gospel the reference to Isaiah's prophecy was not so obvious as to render the judgment of "learned Hebrews" upon the application of that prophecy superfluous, (b) Harnack as- sumes that the Gospel accg to the Hebrews was used both by those Jewish Christians who did, and by those who did not acknowledge the Miraculous Conception, which he thinks would only be possible if it began, like St Mark, with the Baptism of Jesus. That the Ebionites of the last-named kind used this Gospel rests on the untrustworthy assertion of Epiphanius1 ; Eusebius, as we have seen2, refrains from say- ing anything about Scriptures that were used by Ebionites of this class. But even supposing that they did not altogether abjure it, they may (as Epiphanius says) have used it in a form which was " depraved and lopped at the extremities3."
There is, then, strong ground for believing that the opening portion of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews was similar to that
1 Panar. XXX. 3 and 13.
2 See above, p. 251.
3 Panar. XXX. 13. 'Ej> T<£ yovv Trap' aimus €vayye\i({} Kara Marflatoj' 6von ftfrqi, o^x o\(p d£ TrX^/secrrdTy, aXXct vevodev fj.fr ip Kal rjK pwrrj piaa fj.fr y ('E^/ja'i TOUTO KaXovcriv).
17—2
260 The Diatessaron in Mesopotamia
of the Greek St Matthew, and there appears to be nothing that is material to be urged on the other side. This is an important conclusion to have reached both in connexion with the problem of the composition of the Greek St Matthew, and the evidence for the truth of its opening narratives.
(ii.) We pass to the Syriac-speaking Church of Meso- potamia and the lands to the East of it. There is but little trustworthy information to be obtained in regard to the history of Christianity in these regions for the first 300 years or thereabouts. We can hardly, however, doubt that the Faith must have been brought there by Christians from Palestine, in course of time, if not by one or more of the Twelve, or other immediate disciples of the Lord. It is there- fore a curious fact that, when light first falls upon the Church there in the Fourth Century, we do not find any trace of the existence of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews, though it could probably have been fairly well understood in these parts even in its original form, and though its language could easily have been transformed into the dialect of Aramaic spoken there. On the contrary, so far as the Syrian Church has New Testament Scriptures, it is dependent for them upon the Church of the West. The peculiarity in respect to its Canon which concerns us is that the Four Gospels are not commonly used, and that the separate and individual value of each is not properly understood. But it is a compilation from themselves — none other than that made by Tatian — which stands in the way of their being duly appreciated1.
The Church of Edessa, long one of the most famous Syrian Churches and one which laid claim to very great antiquity, must from its position near the border-land, between the East and the West, have been open to the influence of the latter, if it had not been in reality evangelised thence. Hither circ. A.D. 180 Tatian brought or here he made his Diatessaron, the aim of which was to give the contents and common result of the Four Gospels in the most convenient form. This Syrian, having become fully acquainted with them during the time of his sojourn in the West, desired in this way to render their teaching available for his own people.
1 See above, pp. 149 — 151, on the character of the Diatessaron.
and the further East 261
Soon afterwards, we may imagine, a fresh Christian movement proceeded eastward from the centre we have named, carrying the Diatessaron with it. If the Gospel accg to tJte Hebrews had ever been in use, it was entirely driven out through the vigour of the party which had adopted the written Gospel recently obtained, or because that Gospel was generally felt to be superior, as being complete. But further, this work acquired such a hold upon the affections of the people, and its reading such an established place among their Church usages, before the Four Gospels were translated into and circulated in Syriac, that for a long time it could not be displaced even in their favour.
These are very interesting points in the history of the Syrian Church. But their importance in connexion with our present subject consists only in their assisting us to fix the limits within which the Four Gospels were fully acknowledged, which has been our main object thus far in this chapter. The limitation just considered plainly does not detract from the significance of their position within the area where their authority was fully recognised.
The preceding discussion has shewn us certain exceptions which must be made as regards the general acknowledgment of the Four Gospels in Christendom at the close of the second century. We have seen, however, that their authority was then firmly established in the Church of by far the larger and the leading part of the world, and that part, moreover, for which, not excepting St Matthew, they were written, and whose testimony to them for this reason, if for no other, is most entitled to consideration.
Before, however, we proceed to examine the significance of this fact, we will, in order that the whole case may be before us, gather what further information we can concerning the recognition at any time accorded within the bounds of Greek and Latin Christendom to any Gospels which were excluded from the Canon.
And first as to the Gospel accg to the Hebrews. Irenaeus together, no doubt, with those portions of the Church with which he was acquainted, so far as they knew of such a work at all, supposed it to be the original composition by St Matthew
262 Apocryphal Gospels known
and believed that they had an equivalent for it in the Greek Gospel accg to St Matthew^. The definition of the Canon of the Four Gospels was not, therefore, so far as they were concerned, directed against it. The case was somewhat different in Alexandria and the Greek Churches of Palestine. Clement introduces an extra-canonical saying of Christ with the words " as it is also written in the Gospel accg to tlie Hebrews* ? Origen three times implies in his mode of refer- ence to it, that some among his readers and hearers, or at any rate among those whom his readers and hearers had met with or might meet with, were in the habit of turning to this Gospel3. Lastly, Eusebius, where he says that the Hebrew Christians took special pleasure in it, observes that some (who, as Harnack remarks, were plainly not Hebrew Chris- tians) placed it among the spurious writings4. Now do these allusions shew that there was a Greek version of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews, which had at this time a limited circulation? It does not seem at all necessary to suppose this. Those to whom Origen alludes may themselves have been Christians who were Jews by race, and who knew Hebrew, even though they had come to live in cities which were mainly Greek and mingled to a greater or less extent with Gentile Christians. Such there must have been, not only in Caesarea and other Greek cities in Palestine, but also in Alexandria, where there was a very large Jewish quarter. Some men of this kind may well have rendered portions of the Hebrew Gospel to Clement orally, if he could not read it in the original. In this manner, as I have already suggested, both Ignatius and the author of the work bearing Peter's name to which Origen refers may have obtained the saying of the Risen Lord which
1 Adv. Haer. I. xxvi. 2; and in. xi. 7.
2 Strom. II. ix. 45.
3 In Joann. II. 6 (Lomm. I. p. 113; 'Eai/ 3£ irpo<rlcTal TIJ TO Ka6' 'Eppalovs
, etc.); Vetus interpretatio of Origen In Matt. xv. 14 (De la Rue, III. p. 671: " Scriptum est in evangelic quodam, quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos, si tamen placet alicui suscipere illud, non ad auctoritatem, sed ad manifestationem propositae quaestionis," etc. ; there is no corresponding statement in the Greek); Horn. 15 in Jerem. ch. 4 (Lomm. XV. p. 284: El 5^ T<S 7rapaWxcTat r6' "A/ori etc.; the same quotation as that which he makes In Joann. II. 6).
4 H. £. in. xxv. 5. For Harnack on it, see his Chron. I. p. 636.
in Greek and Latin Churches 263
they cite, and which is said to have been contained in the Gospel accg to the Hebrews^.
As regards those persons who, according to Eusebius, pronounced the work to be spurious, it is not necessary to suppose that they had read it. Men do not always refrain from condemning that of which they have but slight know- ledge. If the Hebrew Christians were heard magnifying their own Gospel, and perhaps contrasting it with St Matthew to the disadvantage of the latter2, this would surely have been quite sufficient to provoke some Greek Christians into calling the Hebrew Gospel spurious, even though they had but an imperfect acquaintance with its contents. These in- dications then of use of the Gospel can be explained without assuming the existence of a Greek version, though they might be thought to render the supposition probable, if there were no strong reasons to be urged against it. Such, however, there are. If a Greek Version was known to Clement and Origen, and read even in a narrow circle in their days, not to say earlier, it would be strange that the Church generally should have continued to be so ignorant of this writing, as seems to have been the case, and as even the learned Jerome was, till he came across the original among the Nazarenes. The strangest thing of all would be that Eusebius, as appears from his language in the Theophania*, should have known of this Gospel only as a Hebrew work. If Origen's mode of referring to it in one place could rightly be taken to shew that a Greek translation was in circulation in Alexandria, his language in two others must equally prove circulation in Caesarea. But, indeed, copies of such a version must have found their way from the former to the latter place, and one
1 See above, pp. 14 and 124-5.
2 Symtnachus, the Ebionite, one of the translators of the Old Test, into Greek, may probably have done so in those more or less covert attacks of his upon St Matthew's Gospel to which Eusebius refers, H. E. vi. 17. Cp. Harnack, 'Altchrist. Litt. i. i, p. 7 top.
3 Syr. (ed. Lee, p. 233 f.), " as we have found in a place in the Gospel existing among the Jews in the Hebrew language"; and Fragm. Gr. (Mai, Nova Pair. Bibl. IV. [, p. 155, on Mt. xxv. 14 f.), rb e£s i)/j.8.s rf<ov 'E/3pai'/cotj xapaKTripaiv efiay- 7Aio»', etc. The passages may be seen in full in Harnack, Altchrist, Lilt. I. i, p. 7.
264 Apocryphal Gospels known
at least must have been preserved in the library there, where if not otherwise Eusebius must have met with it.
We must conclude that there was no Greek or Latin Version of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews before Jerome's time; the question, therefore, cannot have arisen whether this Gospel was to be received by the Church generally1. The few Catholic Churchmen, however, who knew something about it, naturally spoke respectfully of it, both on account of the esteem in which Hebrew Christians held it and its affinity with the Greek St Matthew2.
We turn to the Gospel accg to the Egyptians to which we have already had occasion to refer. The earliest express mention of it is that by Clement of Alexandria. In arguing against the Encratites in the third book of his Miscellanies he
1 Harnack (Chron. I. pp. 635 — 641), contends somewhat eagerly for the exist- ence of a Greek Version even long before the time of Clement of Alexandria. But (i) he relies far too confidently for proving this on the various allusions which have been dealt with above. It may further be noted under this head that he mistranslates the words of Eusebius H. E. III. xxv. 5, $ ^ahiara 'Eppaiwv oi rov Xpi(rr6v TrapaSf^dyuei'ot xai/>oixn. "If," he remarks, "the Hebrew Christians " ^dXuTTa " rejoiced in the possession of the Gospel accg to Heb. then there must have been another group of Christians, and forsooth Gentile Christians, who also rejoiced in this book, even if not so exclusively" (I.e. p. 637). Both the order of words in the sentence and the parallel passage in regard to the Ebionites (H. E. III. xxvii. 4), shew plainly that this is a wrong rendering. Eusebius means that the Hebrew Christians rejoice in this Gospel /xdXiora, as compared with other Gospels. Harnack thinks it is "not difficult" to explain the fact that Eusebius and Jerome were ignorant of the existence of a Greek Version, by supposing that its circulation was confined to Alexandria (p. 639). He seems not to realise how improbable it is that no copies should have reached Caesarea. Again, while he emphasises the fact (p. 637) that Origen's Com. on St John, in which a citation from the Gospel accg to Heb. is introduced with the words, tb.v 5£ Trpoffierai TIS, etc., was written in Alexandria, he is silent as to the fact that Origen's other references, which quite as much imply the opportunity of using the Gospel, were made in Caesarea. Yet again on Eusebius' reference to the "certain persons" •who reckoned the work as "spurious" (not simply as Harnack says "disputed "), Harnack makes the remark (p. 636), "The judgment of these rti/^s is important enough for Eusebius not to pass it over in his statement of the Greek (the emphasis is Harnack's) and Catholic Canon. " And in the sequel he goes on to deduce use of the writing somewhere in tht Greek-speaking Church, not, however, in Palestine but in Alexandria. But how can this be a right interpretation of Eusebius' mean- ing, if, as would appear from his language elsewhere, he was not aware of the existence of a Greek Version ?
2 Origen does not name it among the Apocryphal Gospels which he enumerates Horn, in Luc. \. Cp. Harnack, Altchrist. Litt. I. i, p. 7.
in Greek and Latin Churches 265
alludes more than once to, and treats at considerable length of, some alleged words of Christ which they quoted in support of their doctrines, and which were contained in this work1. He marks the fact, as we have seen, that they were derived from this source and not from the Four Gospels, plainly implying that they do not possess the authority which in the latter case they would have had2. He also, however, endeavours to shew that the language in question does not bear the meaning which was put upon it by those against whom he is contending3. If he could succeed in doing this, it was obviously the most effective line of reasoning he could adopt ; for neither he nor other Church-teachers of his time, or subsequently, would have been prepared to assert that every saying attributed to Christ which was not preserved in the Four Gospels was necessarily spurious. Still less would many of his readers and hearers in a place like Alexandria have felt satisfied with such an assumption. The other notices of the Gospel accg to the Egyptians may be rapidly enumerated. Origen, in the well-known passage on the subject of Apocryphal Gospels near the beginning of his first homily on St Luke's Gospel, names this Gospel first among those which the Church does not, but heretics do, recognise4. Hippolytus says that the Naasenes derived some
1 Strom, ill. ch. 6, p. 532; ch. 9, pp. 539—541; ch. 13, p. 553. Comp. Ex- cerpta ex Theodoto, § 67, p. 985.
2 Strom, ill. p. 553 and above p. 246. See also Strom, in. p. 539 end, </>^>ercu 5£ ol/m-ai ev T$ KO.T Atyvirriovs euayyeXiy. This ofyieu has sometimes been supposed to shew that Clement himself had not read the Gospel accg to Egypt. (So Lightfoot, Apost. Frs, Pt. i, n. p. 237.) But Zahn's view, that he does not know for certain whether the Encratites took it thence, is more probable. He must have done so if the punctuation in Clem. Al. ib. p. 541 adopted by Zahn, and suggested by Light- foot I.e., is the true one, and the passage as a whole is made clearer and more self- consistent thereby. See Zahn Kan. II. p. 632, n. i.
There does not, however, seem to be good reason for the grave doubt expressed by Zahn as to whether the Encratite Julius Cassianus, to whom Clement is replying, really quoted it. Clement did not know of any other source whence the citation could be derived and it was therefore probably the one used. There was also, perhaps, something depreciatory in the ol/j.ai, as there is at times in our employ- ment of " I presume."
3 See ib. p. 532, SiaffTpeirT^ov avTobs TO. vir' avruiv (f>ep6fj.eva SiaXvovras udt irws, and the other passages from Strom, ill. referred to in n. i.
4 Lomm. v. p. 87.
266 Apocryphal Gospels known
of their ideas from it1; and Epiphanius that it was the chief source of the Sabellian heresy2.
The title given to this work calls for special consideration. It clearly indicates that at some time this was in a special manner the Gospel in use among Egyptian Christians. And the facts that Clement and Origen mention the book and that Sabellianism, which flourished in the Pentapolis, is said to have been founded upon it, also point to its circulation in Egypt. And this may well have been the home of the Naasenes, or of some branch of them. An " Egyptian," according to the usage of language, was one who by birth and descent belonged to the land, as distinguished both from Jewish and from Greek colonists and their descendants8. There was a strong line of demarcation between the Egyptians and these Greeks, originally in respect to language, and of a political and social character after the former had learned to speak Greek4. It is important to bear in mind the differences of these latter kinds here, because there is no reason to think that the Gospel accg to the Egyptians was originally put forth in Coptic, or translated into it. Converts to Christianity of the two races may well have been kept apart for a time from the causes referred to, especially as the Greeks were chiefly settled in Alexandria, while in the smaller towns and the rural districts the vast majority of the popula- tion was Egyptian. Even those " Egyptian " Christians who were living in Alexandria might also naturally sympathise with and preserve the habits of thought and practices of their brethren elsewhere. It is most improbable that the Gospel accg to the Egyptians can ever have been the Gospel of the Greek Christians of Alexandria, in touch as they must always have been with the rest of Greek Christendom8. It is further
1 Refut. v. 7, p. 98.
2 Panar. LXll. 2.
3 E.g. see Joseph. B.J. II. ch. 18, 7 init. Ka.ro. Se rr/v 'AXe£di/3/>eiai/ del ptv r]v crrd<m Trpbs TO 'lovSaiK&i' rois lirtxu/jlotr <*$' oi> x/07?<7'(¥t6''0* irpo6vfj.ora.TOif /card r&v Alyvirriuv 'TovSa/ois 'AX^afSpoj 7^pas TTJS eriv^taxtas (Suite TO fieroiKeiv /card TT/V
4 Cp. Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Empire, II. p. 240 ff., Eng. Trans. 8 Harnack, Chron. I. p. 613 (with n. 2, ib.), seems to overlook the considera- tion that though the Gospel accg to Hebrews and that accg to Egyptians may have
in Greek and Latin Churches 267
to be observed that the title has become, it would seem, even for Clement and Origen, simply the name of a book. It has ceased apparently to express for them a fact in regard to the circulation of the book. If it had, they could hardly have referred to it only as employed by heretics, they must have alluded to its wider use1. It would seem, then, that, whatever the peculiarities of usage in regard to the written Gospel existing among Egyptian Christians may have been in the earlier half and middle part of the second century, they had, before the end of it, so far as they understood Greek, con- formed to that of the Greek-speaking Church generally. The circumstance that the Gospel of which we are speaking was so soon deposed from the position which it held among Egyptian Christians raises a doubt whether its recognition by them had not always been more partial than the expression "according to the Egyptians" strictly taken would import. We know that names are often affixed with comparatively little consideration and from accidental causes. It is also to be remembered that we know nothing of the history of the spread of Christianity among the natives of Egypt throughout the second century ; at the time when the name Gospel accg to tht Egyptians was given, the Egyptian Christians may have formed but an insignificant body.
These considerations are not, I think, unimportant as a check upon the disposition to draw inferences from the title of this work, which are not warranted by our knowledge of any fact that might illustrate and define its meaning. But we should not be justified, on the other hand, in ignoring the significance of the peculiar usage of less or greater extent which the name implies. We have, also, seen in an earlier chapter that this writing was probably the source of several citations in the Homily which came to be called the Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. The unknown author
been contrasted with one another, they may also have been contrasted by Greek Christians of Alexandria with Gospels used by themselves and the rest of the Church.
1 It is true that Clement and Origen also speak of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews in like manner as the name of a book, and do not dwell on the fact that it is the Gospel in use among the Hebrews. But as they do not in this case refer to a use by heretics, there was not the same reason for further explanation.
268 Apocryphal Gospels known
of this writing may have been a visitor to Corinth, who had come from Egypt, and his familiarity with the Gospel of which we are speaking may have been due to residence in the latter country. But it may also have been read in the Corinthian Church, so that the allusions would be understood. In any case this writer's quotations, made, to say the least, as freely and confidently from an apocryphal source as from the Canonical Gospels, shew that at that time authority was not exclusively attributed in that Church to the Four Gospels.
In conclusion a few words must be said on the character of this Gospel. Though used by heretics, its tendency may not have been markedly heretical, and indeed probably was not. Though Clement maintains only the orthodoxy of a particular passage1, he would hardly have ventured to do this if in other parts of the work there were manifest signs of misbelief. The apocryphal citations in the Second Ep. of Clement make for the same conclusion. With one exception — that in which the homilist gives a portion of the language quoted afterwards by the Alexandrian Clement2 — their style and spirit, and to a considerable extent their actual ex- pressions, are those of the Synoptic Gospels. There are correspondences with both St Matthew and St Luke, but the available evidence is not sufficient to enable us to judge whether this Gospel was based on those two Gospels3. The differences from the Canonical Gospels, even if inconsiderable on the whole, may yet have been sufficient to induce more than one class of heretics to prefer it. The passage quoted by Clement of Alexandria is of an enigmatic character, but lent itself readily to an Encratite interpretation. The same temper of mind, also, which led to the adoption of opinions different from those of the Church would favour the use of Gospels which the Church did not recognise. And it was probably more easy to introduce modifications suitable to the opinions of a particular sect into apocryphal Gospels
1 Harnack exaggerates when he says, Chron. I. p. 616 top, "class Clemens das Evangelium gegen enkratistiche Deutung in Schutz nimmt." Clement concerns himself only with the. particular sayings which the Encratites quoted.
• Clem. Rom. ch. \i.
3 The reader may easily pick out the quotations in question in Lightfoot's edition and examine them by the aid of his notes.
in Greek and Latin Churches 269
than into those which were received and guarded by the Church at large.
If the words in which Justin has been supposed to refer to the Gospel of Peter were really a reference to it, this work must have held a high place as an Apostolic Gospel in the middle of the second century. Both the purely critical and the more general historical grounds, however, for denying that he intends to name it, or uses it, appear to me to be so convincing, that sooner or later, I feel sure, their cogency will be recognised1. I must, then, regard the mention of this work in Serapion's letter to the Church of Rhossus as the earliest reference to it2. Since the recovery of the lost fragment of " Peter," the little episode connected with the reading of the work in this country-town of Serapion's diocese has become familiar to all who are interested in the early history of the Church. It will be sufficient for me here to remark that it illustrates some of the irregularities to which enunciations of a Canon were designed to put an end.
Origen in his first Homily on St Luke, after referring to the Gospel accg to the Egyptians, states that Basilides had ventured to write a Gospel and to call it after his own name. He also mentions Gospels according to Thomas, and to Matthias, and says there are many others3. Basilides' work, as also the Gospel of Truth to which Irenaeus alludes4, were no doubt decidedly Gnostic works. Origen also mentions in his Commentary on St Matthew a Book of James* \ with which Justin has one or two parallelisms, though (as we have seen) it is more than doubtful whether he derived them thence6. It is not necessary for us to dwell on any of these works or on other similar ones. There is not the least probability that any of them enjoyed an early circulation comparable even to that of the Gospel accg to the Egyptians.
The unique position, therefore, accorded to the Four Gospels at the close of the second century in the larger part of the Church, the confidence with which they were regarded as alone undoubtedly authentic, the ease with which
1 See above, p. 93 ff. 2 Ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 12.
3 Lomm. v. p. 87. 4 Adv. Haer. I. xx. r.
5 In Matt. T. x. 17 (Lomm. ill. p. 45). 6 See above, p. 122 ff.
270 The process by which
in course of time this view obtained universal acceptance, were the natural sequel both of their history and of that of other works of the character of Gospels. None of the latter, it appears, ever were serious rivals of the Four in the affections of the great and leading Churches of Greek and Latin Christendom. The areas in which any of them ever were used either to the exclusion of, or along with, the whole or one or more of the quaternion, were very limited and cut off from, or without influence upon, the Church generally.
Nevertheless in the last decade of the century, or not long before, the need for a Canon of Scriptures of the New Covenant began to be distinctly felt, in order to meet a danger which had been growing. The Gnostic Schools accepted some and rejected others of the writings in which Christians generally believed, shewed a disposition to adopt some which were not for the most part so highly regarded, and put forward some which were expressly designed to suggest or support heretical opinions1. Moreover controversy on many points was on the increase within the Church ; those who took part in it required an accepted standard of truth to appeal to. Accord- ingly men holding responsible positions in the Church as bishops and teachers stated what writings were certainly to be accepted as apostolic, in the sense above defined, and what others were certainly spurious, and gave their judgments upon or discussed the claims of others whose character was more doubtful. It was in this way that the formation of the Canon proceeded for more than a century and a half. During all this time there were no councils specially held to do the work ; the subject was not even brought before the many councils, oecumenical and provincial, which assembled. It was only at the very last stage, when the influence of great teachers and the usage of the principal Churches had practi- cally settled almost every doubtful point, that decrees of Councils set their seal upon the result. Now the process could not have been of this kind, if there had not been a very large amount of agreement from the first, and if the points of
1 On the Gnostic writings see Dionysius of Corinth ap. Eus. H. E. iv. xxiii. 11 ; Iren. Adv. Haer. I. xx.; Origen, In Luc. \. i; all which passages have already been referred to.
the Canon was formed 271
difference had not been felt to be comparatively unimportant. At the same time widespread common belief would not make definite statements on the part of persons in authority unnecessary, because there could not but be some unstable or imperfectly instructed Christians. Again, although those who made the statements evidently had no fears in regard to the faith of the great Churches of Christendom, there was the danger that here and there not only individuals, but some small and more or less isolated community, might fall into error under the influence of some powerful person.
Those who make these statements as to the writings which are authoritative for the Christian, do not rely for their justification upon the intuitive perception of the inspiration of these Scriptures on the part of believers. The modern mind is disposed to fancy that this must have been the case. But real as the Divine power in the Gospels and other books of the New Testament assuredly is, the full recognition of it has been largely a matter of growth and training. It may well be doubted whether the authority of the Scriptures could have been originally reared on this foundation, human facul- ties being what they are. And at all events it would scarcely have been possible without much debating, such as preceded and accompanied the formation and establishment of the Nicene doctrine of the Person of Christ ; and of which there is not a trace at any epoch in regard to the Four Gospels, or the greater part of the other New Testament Scriptures. Be this, however, as it may, the basis of the Canon was in point of fact not this, but a belief in the Apostolicity of the writings included. The Gospels, to speak now only of them, were accepted as the authentic embodiment of the Gospel which the Apostles at first preached1. And those who assert that the
1 See above, pp. 244 — 246, and references there. Cp. also p. 52.
Irenaeus, after he has reviewed the Gospels, passes on to the Acts and several of the Epistles (Adv. Haer. III. xii. ff.). It must not be assumed that he acknow- ledged none which he does not quote from. He may not have thought it necessary to carry his examination through to the end. Again in some instances he may have refrained from quoting from writings which many orthodox teachers considered doubtful, even though he did not himself share this opinion, because it was desirable for the purposes of argument that only works generally accepted should be cited.
272 The appeal to tradition
books have this prerogative do so, not simply as expressing their own conviction, but as declaring that of the Church — the Church not as a body endowed with the power of discerning spiritual truth, but (which was the only function appropriate to this case) as a witness to that which she had received. This principle is most clearly stated by Tertullian in the passage from his treatise Against Marcion which has been already cited above. Antiquity he says shall decide between himself and Marcion as to the true form of St Luke's Gospel, while a little further on he remarks that the same authority of Churches founded by Apostles will vouch for the other three Gospels1. The same ground of confidence is implied in Irenaeus' whole line of argument in the third book of his treatise Against Heresies. He appeals to Church-tradition in proof that the Rule of Faith conveys truly what the Apostles taught, and in the same context asserts the Apostolic author- ship, immediate or mediate, of each of the Gospels2. Those analogies which he at length introduces to bring out the foursquareness of the Gospels3 plainly do not prove, and are not .adduced with the idea of proving, the facts about the composition of the several Gospels which he has alleged ; their purpose is to persuade all that they should rest content with having these four, and also that no one of these four could have been spared. Origen also writes : — "we approve nothing save what the Church does, namely, that four gospels are to be received4."
The value which we attach to Church-tradition on this subject will depend in part on our general conception of the history of the Church from the Apostolic Age to the end of the second century. We have heard much in recent years of the forces which made for change during the second century. It may, however, safely be affirmed that all the alteration and growth which took place were gradual ; that
1 Adv. Marc. IV. iv. 5. 2 Adv. Haer. in. i. f.
3 ib. xi.
4 In Luc. I. Note also in same context, "Et ut sciatis, non solum quatuor evangelia, sed plurima conscripta, e quibus haec, quae habemus, electa et tradita ecclesiis etc."..."Ecclesia quatuor habet evangelia... quatuor tantum evangelia sunt probata."
and its value 273
there was not at any point a breach with the past in Greek and Latin Christendom taken as a whole, or in its great Churches, notably in those of Asia and of Rome. This much has been fully established by those thorough investigations which were stimulated by the Tubingen theory and which have brought about its own overthrow.
Further, there were unquestionably conservative forces at work in the life of the Church which kept in check those which were revolutionary. Custom must always count for much with the majority of men in matters of religion. And the bishops and clergy who had for their prime business the care of the Christian people, including such an one as Irenaeus himself — who, while he was a theologian and writer, was (we may well believe) still more truly a pastor — could not but share this conservative temper themselves, and be inclined to- make use of its influence over others. Even teachers like Clement and Origen, whose training and circumstances made their purely intellectual interests stronger, but whose largeness of heart and devotion to the common good of the Church led them to consider the needs of its humbler members, were not unaffected by it. The eyes of the Church at large were constantly directed backwards to her beginning. That habit of appealing to the teaching and example of the Apostles, of which we have been speaking, was no new thing at the close of the second century. We have observed it in Hegesippus1. We have seen it in a very marked form in Justin, and we find it still earlier in the letters of Clement and Ignatius2.
The reminiscences of Irenaeus and others — by which I mean now not merely what had been told them by their elders, but even more, what had fallen within their own observation — must, also, be borne in mind. And in the light of considerations of these two kinds we must review once more the traces of the use of the Gospels in the middle part and first half of the century, and so form our conviction of the course of the history. It is impossible that Irenaeus should have made his statements on the subject of the Four Gospels with such calm assurance, if
1 See above, p. 155 f.
2 Clem, ad Cor. 42; Ign. ad Magn. 13.
S. G. 18
274 General results
within the period since he reached or had nearly reached man's estate, that is since circ. 155 A.D., any one of them had been commonly spoken of as a work recently introduced, or if any other Gospel besides these had been treated as equal to them, in any of the leading Churches of Christendom with which he was acquainted. So with Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, whose reminiscences stretched nearly as far back as did those of Irenaeus.
A change of a certain kind there might have been of which these writers would not be fully conscious, or which would not destroy the confidence with which they spoke. The very enunciation of the formula — "there are Four Gospels" — which we first meet with in Irenaeus and which was probably then still new, itself made a difference. It helped all to realise more vividly the peculiar claims of these writings ; it estab- lished the recognition of their authority as an obligation of faith. There had also, no doubt, been a growing sense, which now received special encouragement, of the inspiration of these Gospels ; and this served to render all their individual traits and turns of expression precious, and to make it important, where there were, or seemed to be, discrepancies between them, to endeavour to harmonise them, and so to allow for the truth of each. Again attention must have been increasingly turned upon the Fourth Gospel by the questionings of the time, and its special value no doubt thus came to be more fully realised. But the clear definition of the Fourfold Gospel some years before the close of the second century must have been the outcome of the practice and feeling of the chief portions of the Church from the middle of the century at least. The elements of the conception were prepared ; little more was needed than that a conviction should be made explicit which before was implicit.
In the discussions contained in earlier chapters, we have assumed, as critics of very various schools now commonly do, that where a document of the nature of a Gospel appears to have been used, and the quotation made agrees in substance and to a considerable degree, at least, in language, with what is found in one or more of the Four Gospels, while it is not known to have been contained in any apocryphal Gospel, the former
of our enquiry 275
should, in spite of comparatively slight differences of form, be regarded as the source. The evidence that has now come before us helps to shew that we have been right in so doing. No other Gospels had had a circulation at all com- mensurate with theirs. But we may well feel, also, that an inadequate impression of the extent of their use is conveyed by the traces of it in the remains of the Christian literature of the middle and even of the earlier half of the second century. That it would have been placed beyond the possi- bility of doubt if those remains had been more abundant and had been of a somewhat different character becomes something more than a conjecture. At the same time it is not probable that fuller evidence would alter materially our impressions as to the broad characteristics of different epochs.
I have said that by the middle of the second century, the chief Churches must have read all Four Gospels and regarded them as authoritative. It is possible that nearly as late as this there were even important Churches which did not possess all the Four. But in the Church of Rome — the one about which we have the fullest knowledge though that is all too meagre — they seem all to have been in use some thirty years earlier1.
The Gospels could hardly have made their way at the early time at which they must have begun to do so, if they had not come with good credentials. There were the means still of testing their claims. It will be well, however, to distinguish between, on the one hand, the strength of the evidence for the fact that they had been handed down from the confines of the Apostolic Age and were a true embodiment of Apostolic testimony, and on the other hand the trustworthi- ness of the evidence for particular accounts of their authorship and composition. The former consisted in the length of time for which the several Gospels had been known, and in the case of the Synoptic Gospels, at least, in the general correspondence between the written Word and that which had been orally taught — points as to which there could not easily be mistake ; whereas there would be a natural tendency
1 See pp. 34 — 47 above on the Shepherd of Hernias.
18— 2
276 General results
to exaggerate the part taken by individual Apostles in the production of this and that Gospel.
In the case of our first Gospel the signs of early use are specially abundant ; and the testimony of a writer who had himself seen and heard not a few who had been hearers of various Apostles, and possibly of two who had been hearers of the Lord Himself, points to a connexion between this Gospel and a Hebrew document by the Apostle Matthew. His language, however, is such as to leave room for, if it does not suggest, the belief that Matthew's work has been in- corporated in the Greek Gospel, but that the latter is not in any strict sense a translation of the former. The parallelisms with, and citations from, our second Gospel are scantier than in the case of any of the remaining three ; but the name of its author is attested more strongly than that of the author of any of the others ; and the attribution may be relied upon the more confidently, because Mark was not a man of special eminence. The description, resting on the same authority, of the relation of this Gospel to the preaching of Peter, according to which the work of the evangelist was restricted to that of careful reporting, may represent his dependence as greater than it was in reality, and yet contain a large measure of truth. Of the use of the third Gospel there are early traces, but the first mention of Luke as the author is that by Irenaeus. As in the case of Mark, however, his comparative obscurity among the men of the Apostolic Age is in favour of its being truly ascribed to him. We can see no reason for his having been selected, if he was not the author. The connexion between this Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles might have suggested that some companion of St Paul was the author, but there was nothing in the latter work — nothing at least which would readily attract notice — to mark out this one in particular for the honour. It should be remembered also that according to Justin, writing thirty to forty years earlier than Irenaeus, two at least of the evangelists were men of the class to which Mark and Luke belonged, and that in all probability he has these two in mind. Lastly, the differences between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, which, as we shall hereafter see, probably corresponded more closely with
of our enquiry
277
the common form of the oral teaching, are in certain respects a guarantee of authenticity. There must have been good grounds for believing that this Gospel was founded upon Apostolic testimony in order to overcome the prejudice that would be created by the contrasts between it and accounts which had been more generally received. The evidence is, as we have shewn, strong both for the work of the Apostle John in Asia in the last part of his life, and for his authorship of the Gospel. But the idea of actual authorship might almost imperceptibly have been substituted for a more indirect part in the work, that of a witness and teacher whose utterances had been embodied in it and had inspired it.
External evidence taken by itself does not, I think, enable us to go further than we have done in any of the above cases.
INDEX.
Abbot, Ezra; 80 n. 2; 176 n.
Abbott, E. A.; on the question whe- ther Justin used the Fourth Gospel, 91 n. i, 131 f. ; the attitude of Gaius to the Fourth Gospel. 241 f.
Acta Archelai; on Basilides, 64, 65 n. 4, 67 n. i
Acts of the Apostles ; parallelisms with in Ep. of Clem. Rom., 13 f.; in Shepherd of Hernias, 46 n. 3 ; in letter of Churches of Vienne and Lyons, 142 n. 3
Acts of Peter and Paul; no
Acts of Pilate (early Christian docu- ment) ; to be clearly distinguished from the extant Acts of Pilate (or Gospel of Nicodemits], 104 n. i, 114 n. 3; references to by Justin, 87, 92, 98, 103 ff.; by Tertullian, 105 ff. ; an alleged letter of Pilate connected therewith, no f. ; used in the Gospel of Nicodennis (otherwise called the Acts of Pilate], 115 ff . ; and in the Gospel of Peter, 117 ff. ; probability that the Fourth Gospel was used in it, 121
Acts of Pilate (otherwise called Gos- pel of Nicodenius); its different forms, 1 1 2 f. ; its name in the West, Acts of Pilate, 113 ff.; the early Pilate docu- ment was used in its composition, 115 f.
Acts of Pilate (heathen document) ; 1 1 2 n . i , 1 1 4 f .
Agrippa Castor; on Basilides. 64, 66 n. 2, 138
Aleatoribus,De; citation from, 237 n.; quotations in it from N. T., etc., 247 n. 2
Alogi, The ; the character and motif of their peculiar views, 198-208; the time and place of their rise, 208—210; the phenomenon of the Alogi con- sidered in relation to the history of the reception of the Fourth Gospel, 210-212, 235, 242 f.
Ammonius ; his divisions of the Gos- pels, 24
Anicetus, Bp;^i, 153 f., 196,221,227
Apocalypse of John; reference to by Justin, 84, 89 ; citations from in letter of Churches of Vienne and Lyons, 142 n. 3; allusion to by Dionysius of Corinth, 143; its relation to the Fourth Gospel, and theories as to its composition, 1 7 r ff.
Apocryphal Gospels ; see under Peter, Gospel of; Egyptians, Gospel accg to ; James, Protev. of; etc.
Apocryphal sayings, or forms of sayings, of Christ ; Ignatius ad Smyrn., 14, 28 ; possible instance in Ep. of Barnabas, 33 ; none in Shep- herd of Her mas, 47 ; instances in ind Ep. of Clem. Rom., 58 f. ; Justin M., I25» r35 (nos. n, 14, 17); Clem. Alex. 58, 135 (no. 11); Origen, 14
Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis ; chronology of his life and writings, 138 f . ; fragments on Paschal observ- ance, 140 f., 179, 180 f. , 185 f., 191, 196 f.
Apollonius ; he believed the common tradition respecting the residence of the Apostle John in Asia, 233 n. 2
Apostate ; use of this term in Shep- herd of Hernias, 37 n. 2 ; allusions to the act of apostasy in the N. T., and by Polycarp and Ignatius, 37 n. i
Apostles; their authority, 94, 271; labours of members of the Twelve in Churches to the West of Palestine, 253 n. i
Apostolical Ordinances and Con- stitutions ; similarities in the form of certain precepts of Christ given in them and in the Ep. of Clem. Rom., 1 1
Aristides, Apology of; recovery of, 48 n. i ; date of, 48-50 ; wide dis- semination of, 49 ; its statements in
280
Index
regard to the Gospel history, 51 ; on
the change from the preached to the
written Gospel, 51 f. Aristides, the rhetorician; 221 n. i Aristion ; John the Elder is coupled
with him by Papias, 169 Aristotle's Constitution of Athens;
the papyrus MS. is without divisions, 22 Asconius Pedianus ; the references
in his Annotations on Five of Cicero's
Orations ', 23 f. Asia, Church in the province of;
absence of literary activity there till
the middle of the second century,
137 f . ; letter addressed to it, 142;
its tradition in respect to the latter
years of the Apostle John, 162 ff. Athanasius; reference to subject of
Paschal observance in a letter to
Epiphanius, 184 f. Athenagoras ; writings of, and the
parallelisms with N. T. writings . which they contain, 151 f.
Barnabas, The Epistle of; its cha- racter and date, 29, 31 f.; parallel- isms with St Matthew in, 33
Barsalibi; 240
Basilides ; notices of his Exegetica, 64 f. ; Hippolytus' account of his sys- tem, 65-9 ; Origen's references to his Gospel, 64 f., 269; his use of St Luke, 65
Baur ; on Quartodecimani.sm, 173 n. r, 175 n. i, 197 n. 2
Bergk ; on divisions in ancient books, 22 ff.
Birt ; on divisions in ancient books, 22 ff. ; ways in which letters were preserved, t6o
Bleek ; on the authorship of the Apoca- lypse, 171 n. 2; on Quartodeciman- ism, 176, 197 n. i
Boor, de ; 167 n. 3
Bousset ; on the tradition respecting the Ephesine sojourn of the Apostle John, 163 n., 214. n. 2, 228 n. 4, 230 n. i ; the composition of the Apoca- lypse and its relation to the Fourth Gospel, 172 nn. r, 3
Bretschneider ; 174
Brooke, A. E. ; on date of Heracleon, 158 n. i
Burkitt, F. C. ; on use of St Mark, i<S n. I, 46
Cassiodorus ; refers to a chapter in
the Antiquities of Josephus, 23 Cerinthus ; suggested by the Alogi as
the author of the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel, 204 ff. Clement of Alexandria; gives a pas- sage of Christ's teaching in the same form as Clement of Rome, 6 f. , 8 n. 3, 10 ; divided his Miscellanies into chapters, 22 f.; refers to chapters in the O. T., 24; quotes and discusses a passage from the Gospel accg to the Egyptians, 58, 264 f., 267 f.; on Basilides, 64-7 ; has a saying of Christ given also by Justin, 126, 135 (no. u); his citations from Heracleon, 158 ; on Quartodecimanism, 179, 181 f., 191,
197 ; on the Apostle Philip, 230; on the later years of the Apostle John, 233; on the Four Gospels, 246, 274; on the Gospel accg to the Hebrews, 256, 262, 267 n.
Clement of Rome ; genuineness and date of his (so-called first) Epistle, 3; his quotations from O. T., 4 and 5 n. ; Evangelic quotations in, 3 f., 5-i4» 25 f . ; traces in their form of the effects of oral teaching, 9 f. ; his silence respecting the Apostle John, 18 f., 165 ; parallelisms with a pas- sage in the Fourth Gospel, i<S n. 2
Clement of Rome, Second Epistle of (so-called) ; its name for the Sacred Writings, 58, 94 n. i ; its quotations from and parallelisms with our Gospels and with an Apocryphal source or sources, 58 f., 267 f. ; the date and place of its composition, 60-63
Clementine Homilies and Recog- nitions, 159 n. 2
Conybeare, F. C. ; 48 n. i, 106 n. r, 1 1 2 n. 3
Credner, on the sources of Justin's Evangelic quotations, 78 f., 80 n. 2 ; the Alogi, 198 n. i
Cureton ; 1 10 n. i , 140 n. 2
Cyprian ; 194 n. i
Cyril of Jerusalem ; his parallelisms with the Gospel of Peter, 101 n. i, 133 (c, e, f) ; the probability that they were due in his case, also, to
• use of the Pilate document, 118
Davidson, S. ; 171 n. 2, 173 n. 2,
198 n. r
Delff ; on the tradition respecting the Ephesine sojourn of the Apostle John, 163 n., 214 n. 2, 228 n. 4, 23011. i Diatessaron ; see Tatian Diognetum, Ep. ad ; 152 n. i Dionysius, Bp of Alexandria ; on
Index
281
two Johns, 1 70 ; reference to Paschal observance, 194 n. i ; on certain who rejected the Apocalypse 206
Dionysius, Bp of Corinth; his reply to a letter from Soter, 60 ; time when he flourished, 143 n. [ ; his reference to the "Dominical Scriptures" and to Gnostic corruptions of them, 143 f., 270 n. i
Dollinger ; 198 n. i
Drummond, J. ; on Hippolytus' ac- count of Basilides, 66 n. 2, 67 n. i, 68 n. i ; Justin's use of the Fourth Gospel, 80 n. 2, 99 n. 2; Quarto- decimanism, 173 n. 2, 176 n., 183 n. i, 186, 195 n. i
Duchesne ; on Paschal observance, 183 n. 3, 195 n. 3
Ebed-Jesu ; 239
Ebionite Gospel ; Epiphanius on, 125 n. 2, 135 (no. 8)
Kdessa ; the Church of, 260 ; Tatian's Diatessaron used there, z'/>.
Egyptians, Gospel according to ; agreement between a citation in ind Ep. of Clem. Rom., and one made from this Gospel by Clement of Alex- andria, 58; notices of, 264-266; sig- nification of the title, 266-268 ; tem- per of the work, 268
Elder ; use of this term in addresses of Second and Third Epistles of St John, i7of. ; difference between the use of it by Papias and by Irenaeus, 224 n. 3. See also John the Elder
Eleutherus, Bp ; 153
Encratites ; Clement of Alexandria argues against them, 265
Engelhardt ; on Justin's attitude to the Fourth Gospel, 83 n. i, 90 n. i
Epiphanius ; on the Acts of Pilate, 114; the Ebionite Gospel, 125 n. 2, 135 (no. 8); Quartodecimanism, 185; his account of the Alogi, 200 ff. , 209, 210 n. i ; his dependence for it on Hippolytus, ib. ; comparison between it and fragments of the Heads against Gains, 239 ff. ; his invention of the term "Alogi," 203; on Cerinthus, 205 n. i ; the Gospel accg to the He- brews, 125 n. i, 256, 259; the Gospel accg to the Egyptians, 266
Episcopacy; history of at Rome, 41,
illustrations of the use of this term, 237 n. Eusebius of Alexandria; quotes the
section of Gospel of Nicodemus on the Descent into Hades, 114 Eusebius of Caesarea ; on the Apol- ogy of Aristides, 48 f.; the chronology of Justin's life and writings, 76 f. ; the Acts of Pilate (Christian and heathen), 112 ; the writings of Melito and Apollinaris, 138 f., 141, 181; his quotation from Tatian's Address, J47 n- 35 *ne d&te at which Eleu- therus became Bishop of Rome, 153; Hegesippus, 154 ff. ; Papias' refer- ence to John the Elder, 169^, 218 n. i; Paschal observance, 183 f., 187, 191 f., 193 f., 197; Gaius, 206 f.; the chronology of Montanism, 208; the question whether he confounds Philip the Apostle and Philip the Evange- list, 230 n. 5; on the use of the Gos- pel accg to the Hebrew: by Hegesippus and among Hebrew Christians, 125 f., 157 n. 2, 25of.; he does not suggest that the Greek St Matthew was re- lated to it, 256; he knew of no Greek translation of this work, 262 ff. Other references, 39 n. i, 52, 64, 167, 224 n. 3, 241
Fastings on Wednesdays and Fri- days ; early reference to the prac- tice, 194 n. 2
Florinus ; letter of Irenaeus to him, 214 ff., 219 n. 3, 234; letter to Victor respecting him, 220
Funk; on Tatian, 147 n. 3, 148; Pas- chal observance, 186 n., 195 n. 3
Gaius; his rejection of the Apocalypse, 206 ff.; supposition of Dr J. R, Harris and Dr E. A. Abbott that he denied the authenticity of the Gospel accg to St John, 239 ff. ; on the Apostle Philip, 230
Georgius Hamartolus; 167 Gospel of Truth ; 65 n. 2, 269 Gnostics; claim made by them to possession of special Apostolic tradi- tions, 65, 69 ; their treatment of the Scriptures, 143 f., 157; the time of their rise, 156; the doctrine of the Logos in their systems, 205 n. 2 Grabe ; on a passage in Irenaeus, 22jn. i Gregory of Tours; on the Acts of
Pilate, H3f.
Gwynn; the fragments of Hippolytus' Heads agninst Gaius discovered by him, 207, 239
Handmann ; 250 n.
282
Index
Harnack; on the genuineness and date of the Epistles of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, 3 nn. r, 2; the date of the Didache, 30 n. r ; the date of the Ep. of Barnabas, 32 f. ; list of bishops of Rome, 41 n. 2 ; the date of the Shepherd of Hennas, 41 n. 3 ; the date and place of composition of the (so-called) ind Ep. of Clem. Rom., 60-63; Hip- polytus' account of the system of Basilides, 66 n. i ; Justin's attitude to the Fourth Gospel, 130 f. ; Justin and the Gospel of Petfr, 93 n. 3, 97 n. i, 103 n. 4 ; Justin's and Tertullian's references to Acts of Pilate, 106 n. ; Pilate's "letter," 1 1 1 ; the question whether Justin used the Protevangelium Jacobi, 122 n. 2, 124 n. i ; the genuineness of several frag- ments of Melito, 140 nn. ; the genuineness of the fragments of Apol- linaris, 141 n. 2; the text of the passage of Tatian's Ac/dress quoted by Eusebius, 147 n. 3 ; Tatian's relations with Justin, 148 ; the dates of different portions of Ep. ad Diognetum, 152 n. ; Hegesippus, 155 n. i ; the tradition respecting the Ephesine sojourn of the Apostle John, 163 n., 214 n. 2, 231 n. i; the Apocalypse, 172 nn. 2, 4; the Alogi 198 n. i, 203 n. 4, 210 f. ; Epiphanius' dependence upon Hippolytus, 200 n. 3 ; the chronology of Montanism, 208 n. i, 209 n. 2; Irenaeus' age when he was a hearer of Polycarp and the date of his birth, 215 n. 4, 217 n. 2, 218, 220 n. 3; the date of Polycarp's Martyrdom, 221 n. i ; the Elders referred to by Irenaeus, 222 n. i, 224 n. 2, 225 n. 2; the De Aleatoribus, 247 n. 2 ; the Gospel accg to the Hebrei.vs, 250 n., 254 ff., 257, 258, 262, 263 nn. 2, 3, 264 n. i ; the Gospd accg to the Egyptians, 266 ff.
Other references: 49 n. 2, 50, 53 nn. i, 2, 57 n. i, 58 n. i. 64 n. i, 76 n. 2, 77 n. i, 112 n. 2, 139 nn. i, 3, 146 n. 6, 153 n. 4, 154 nn. i, 2, 167 n. 2, 168 n. i, 228 n. 4
Harris, J. R. ; his discovery of Syriac Version of Apology of Aristides, 48 n. i ; on the date of the Apology of Aristidcs, 49 n. 2 ; Quadratus, 50 n. 2 ; the Alogi, and the attitude of Gains to the Fourth Gospel, 203 n. 2, 239 It.
Harvey; 199 n. 2 ; 220 n. 2; 223 n. 3;
225 n. i
Headlam, A. C. ; 93 n. 3
Hebrew Christians ; their history, 252 ff.
Hebrews, Ep. to ; used by Hennas, 47 ; not acknowledged by Gains, or by Church of Rome, 241
Hebrews, Gospel according to the; possible quotation from, 14 f., 28; question of its use by Justin, 78 f. , 124 f., 127; used by Hegesippus, 125, 154, 157; Eusebius and Jerome found it in use among Hebrew Christians, 250 ff. ; reverence was felt for it by other than Hebrew Christians (125 f., 264), but it had not been translated before Jerome's time, 261 ff . ; general considerations as to its trustworthiness, 252 ff. ; it contained an account of the Birth and Infancy of Jesus, 257 ff.
Hegesippus; the chronology of his life, 153 f. ; his point of view, 154 f.; his description of the Scriptures, 144, 155; the character of his Memoirs, 155 f. ; the line of argument by which he sought to combat Gnosticism com- pared with that employed by Irenaeus, 155 f., 273; his use of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews, 125, 154, 157, 251 ; parallelism with Justin in regard to the form of a saying of Christ, 125, 135 (no. 1 6)
Heinichen; 54 n. 2, 153 n. 5, 19811. I
Heracleon; i^X
Hermas, Shepherd of; its character and the questions with which it deals, 29, 34 f. ; its date, 35-41 ; parallelisms with the Four Gospels in, 42-47, 72—5, 275 ; shews signs of acquaint- ance with other N.T. writings, 47 ; appears not to quote from any Apocryphal source, ib. ; quoted as Scripture in the De Aleatoribns, 247 n. 2
Hilgenfeld; on the date of \\\z Shepherd of Hermas, 41 n. 3; words in Hermas which he supposes to be taken from an Apocryphal source, 47 n. 2 ; the date of the Apology of A r is tides, 49 n. 2; Justin's attitude to our Gospels, 80 n. 2, 83 n., 129 f., 134; on the Protevangclinm Jacolri, 122 n. 2; the text of the passage of Tatian's Address quoted by Eusebius, 147 n. 3 ; the tradition respecting the Ephesine sojourn of the Apostle John, 163 n., 228 n. i; the date of the
Index
283
Apocalypse, 172 n. 4; the Paschal controversy, 173 nn. i, 2, 175 n. i, 185 n. 2, 190 nn. r, 2, 195 n. r, 197 n. 2
Other references, 148, 171 n. 2, 198 n. i
Hippolytus, on Basilides, 65-69 ; Quartodecimans, 179 f., 187, 191, 197; his Paschal cycle, 194 n. i; dependence of Epiphanius and Phil- aster on him in their accounts of the Alogi, 200 ff. ; his Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse, 202 n. 3, 239 f . ; on Cerinthus, 205 n. i, 207; suggested by Lightfoot as the author of the Muratorian Canon. 247 ; he accepted the Four Gospels, il>.; on the Gospel accg to the Egyptians, 265 f.
Holtzmann, H. ; on Justin's attitude to our Gospels, 130; the tradition respecting the Ephesine sojourn of the Apostle John, 163 n., 164 n., 214 n. 2, 228 f., 231 n. i, 233 n. 2; the Alogi, 198 n. i
Hort, F. J. A. ; on Basilides, 65 n. 4, 66 f. ; the chronology of Justin's life and writings, 76 n. 2, 77 n. 2; the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, 159 n. 2 ; the motive for the omission of TO Trdcrxa at Jn vi. 4, 248 n. 4
Ignatius ; genuineness and date of his seven epistles in the shorter Greek form, 3 ; he seems to refer to a document, or documents, containing Gospel facts, 3 n. 3; quotation by, from a non-Canonical, or oral, source, 14 f., 28; parallelisms with St Mat- thew, 15, 27 f., with St John, 19, 28 (nos. 6, 7) ; his silence respecting the Apostle John, 19 ff., 165 f., 235 ff.; his martyrdom as illustrating the history of persecution, 39 n. i
Irenaeus ; on Gnostic use of the Gospels, 65 nn. 1,2; the system of Basilides, 66; his reference to Polycarp's letters, 137 n. i; on Tatian, 146; a line of argument employed by him compared with that employed by Hegesippus, 156 ; the attitude of Ptolemaeus and other Valentinians to the Gos- pels, 158; certain who rejected John's Gospel and the gifts of the Spirit. 198 f., 210; Cerinthus, 205 n. i, 207 ; his statements respecting the later years and the writings of the Apostle John, 213^; his reminis- cences of Polycarp, 214 f. ; the age of Irenaeus when he was a hearer of
Polycarp, and the date of his birth, 214-222; his quotations from and references to "the Elders," 722-227; his visits to Rome, 227; on the conference between Polycarp and Anicetus, 227 f. ; his letter to Victor on Quartodecimans, 192 f., 215; another regarding Florinus, 220; the Four Gospels, 244 f.; Christians who had not the Scriptures in their own language, 249 ; he supposed the Hebrew Gospel to be the original of the Greek St Matthew, 256, 261 f.; on the diverse beginnings of the Gospels, 257 n. 3; on Gnostic cor- ruptions and forgeries, 270 n. i ; his examination of N. T. writings other than the Gospels, 271 n. i Other references, 39 n. i, 142 n. 2,
167, 205, 224 n. 3, 273 f. Isidore, son of Basilides; 65 n. 4, 69. J57
Jacobi Protevangelium ; 121 ff., 134 (nos. 2, 3, 4), 269
James, Ep. of; used by Hennas, 47
Jerome; on the Apology of Ar is tides, 48; the Gospel accg to Hebrews, 128, 251 f , 256 ff.; on Tatian, 147 n. i; the Memoirs of Hegesippus, 155 n. 4
Jews ; the execution of the death- sentence upon Christ attributed to them, 51 n. i, 97 ff. , 107 n. i
John the Apostle ; tradition as to his later years, 18 f., 162 ff., 213 f . ; men and parties interested in disputing its truth refrained from doing so,
234 ff. ; his example appealed to by Quartodecimans, 173, 215, 227; the silence of the Sub-Apostolic Age respecting him, 18 ff., 164 ff., 231,
235 ff. For the Second Century impugners of the authenticity of the writings attributed to him, see Alogi
John the Elder: 168 ff., 231, 232. See also Elder
John, First Epistle of; parallelisms with in Ep. of Polycarp, 20 ; in Justin M., 83
John, Gospel accg to ; parallelisms with in Epp. of Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, i8n. 2, 18-21, 28 (nos. 6, 7) ; in Shepherd of Hernias, 46 f., 74 f. ; use of in Basilidean record quoted by Hippolytus, 68 f. ; by Justin M., 81 ff. ; probability that it was used in the early Acts of Pilate, 12 1 ; signs of acquaintance with in fragments of Melito, 140; reference
284
Index
to in fragments of Apollinaris, 141; quotations from in Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, 142 ; in Tatian's Address, 149; parallelisms with in Athenagoras' Appeal, 151; use of by Ptolemaeus, 158 ; and by Heracleon, ib. ; its relation to the Apocalypse, 171 f. ; the question of its authorship, 276 f.
Josephus; quoted, 266 n. 3
Julian of Eclanum; his censure of Jerome's attitude to the Gospel accg to the Hebrews, 257 n. 4
Julicher; on Justin's altitude to our Gospels, 83 n. i, 130
Julius Africanus; evidence that he recognised the Gospels according to Matthew, Luke and John, 248
Julius Cassianus; 265 n. 2
Justin M.; on the public rending of the Scriptures, 24; chronology of his life and writings, 76 f. ; history of controversy as to his Evangelic quo- tations, 77-80; his use of the Fourth Gospel, 8 1 ff . ; the purport and method of Justin's reasoning as affect- ing his quotations, 84 fif. ; his refer- ences to the "Memoirs of the Apostles," 77 f., 80 ff., 91-3; his reference to the Apocalypse of Jo /in, 84, 89 ; his reference to " Peters Memoirs," 77, 93 f., 269; his an- tagonism to Docetism, 95 f. , 132; his parallelisms with the Gospel of Peter examined, 97-102 : his appeal to the registers of Quirinius and the Acts of Pilate, 87, 92, 98; his references to the latter compared with those of Tertullian, 102-109 ; with the alleged letter of Pilate, no f . ; and with the Gospel of Nicodemiis (otherwise called the Acts of Pilate}, 115 ff. ; in connexion with the last four headings see also 132 f. ; parallelisms with the Protevangtliutn Jacobi examined, 121 ff., 127, 134 (nos. 2, 3, 4); the Gospel accg to the Hebrews a source from which, possibly, traits in Justin were directly or indirectly derived, 124 f., 127, 263; parallelism with Hegesippu> in regard to a saying of Christ, 125, 135 (no. 16) ; with the Gospel of 7 'ho <t/i 'tis, 126 f. ; the attack on him by Crescens, 38 n. i, 146 ff. ; reference to the ob- servance of the first day of the week, 194 n. 2 ; he believed in the connexion of the Apostle John with Asia, 233 Other references, 137 f. , 205, 273
Keim ; on Justin's attitude to the Fourth Gospel, 130; the tradition respecting the Ephesine sojourn of the Apostle John, 163 n., 168 n. 3
Kennedy, H. A. A.; on the time at which the Scriptures were first trans- lated into Latin, 161 n.
Kenyon; on the MS. of Aristotle's Constitution of Athens, 22
; instances of the use of this word, 101
Latin Versio^ of the N.T.; when first made, 160 f.
Lightfoot, Bp; on the genuineness and date of the Epp. of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, 3 nn. i, 2; the apparent reference by Ignatius to written Gospel records, 3 n. 3; the Evangelic quotations in Clement of Rome, 6 f. ; the date of the Didache, 30 n. i ; the Ep. of Barnabas, 31 n. 3, 32; on list of Bishops of Koine, 41 n. 2; date of the Shepherd of Hernias, 40, 41 n. 3; the term \6yia, 53 n. 3 ; date and place of composition of (so-called) ind £/>. of Clem. Rom. 60-63; Justin's and Tertullian's re- ferences to Acts of Pilate, 106 n. ; the letter of the Smyrnaearis regarding the Martyrdom ot Polycarp, 138 n. 2; the Apologies of Melito and Apollinaris, 139 n. i; the genuine- ness of various fragments of Melito, 140 nn. i, 2, 141 n. 3; dates of different portions of Ep. ad Diogne- tuin, 152 n.; Quartodecimanism, 175 n. 2; the Alogi, 198 n. i, 203 nn. 2, 4; the interpretation of Irenaeus' reference to them, 199 n. i; Epiphanius' dependence on llip- polytus, 200 n. 3; Irenaeus' remi- niscences of Polycarp, 215 nn. r, 4; the Elders referred to by Irenaeus, 222 n. i, 223, 224 n. 2, 225 n. 2; the Mitratorian Canon, 24711. i ; Clement of Alexandria's quotations from the Gospel accg to the Egyptians, 265 n. 2
Other references: 5 n. i, 35 n. 5, 37 n. 6, 39 nn. 2, 3, 53 nn. i, 2, 57 nn. 2, 3, 58 n. i, 167 nn. 2, 5 ; 194 n. i, 199 n. i, 218 n. i, 2:1 n.
'» 239
Lipsius, R. A.; on the date of the Shepherd of Hermas, 41 n. 3 ; Justin's and Tertullian's references to Acts of Pilate, 106 n., 112 n. 3, 114 n. 3; Epiphanius' dependence on Hippo-
Index
285
ytus, 200 n. 3 ; Irenaeus' age when he was a hearer of Polycarp, and the date of his birth, 215 n. 4, 216 n. 3, 221 n. i; his visits to Rome, 227 Other references: no n., 19811. i
Lods; 93 n. 3
" Logia, The"; question as to the use of such a document by Clement of Rome, 7-9, 1 2 ; fragment of Papias on, 53-7 ; meaning of term, 53 f.
Xdyos; meaning of the word as applied to sayings of Christ, 5 n. 2
Logos, Doctrine of the; the sense of its importance served to direct attention to the Fourth Gospel, 152, 274; place of the Logos in Gnostic systems, 205
Lord's Day, The; references to in the N.T. and early Christian writers, 194 n. 2
Luke, Gospel accg to; parallelisms with in Ep. of Clem. Rom., 8 f., 25 f.; the Didache, 31, 70 f. ; Shepherd of Hernias, 42-4, 74; Exegetica of Basi- lides, 65 ; use of in Basilidean record quoted by Hippolytus, 68 ; quotations from in Letter of Churches of Vienne and Lyons, 142; parallelisms with in Theophilus ad Autolycum, 145 n. i ; probable use of in Athenagoras' Appeal, 151; use of by Ptolemaeus, 158; and by Heracleon, ib.\ the question as to its authorship, 276
Luthardt; 173 n. 2; 176 n.
Lutzelberger; on the tradition re- specting the Ephesine sojourn of the Apostle John, 163 n.
Marcion; relation of his Gospel to that according to St Luke, 64; his explanation of Christ's celebration of the Passover, 178
Mark, Gospel accg to; parallelism with in Ep. of Polycarp, 17, 27; parallelisms with in Shepherd of Hernias, 45 f. , 73 f. ; comparative rarity of the use of, 17 f . ; fragment of Papias on, 53 ; probable use of by Ptolemaeus, 158; the question as to its authorship, 276
Matthew, Gospel accg to; parallelisms with in the Ep. of Clement, 8, 13, 25 f. ; Epp. of Ignatius, 15, 27 f.; the Didache, 31, 70 f. ; Ep. of Barna- bas, 33; Shepherd of Hennas, 42-5, 72 f.; reference to in fragments of Apollinaris, 141; allusion to by Dionysius of Corinth, 143; citation from in Theophilus ad Autolycum,
145 ; parallelisms with in Athena- goras' Appeal, 151; use of by Pto- lemaeus, 158; the question as to its authorship, 276
Matthias, Traditions of; 65, 269
Mechitarist Fathers; their publica- tion of a fragment of the Armenian Version of the Apology of Aristides, 48 n. i
Melito; chronology of his life and writings, 138 f. ; the fragments of his writings, 139 f . ; his Quartodeciman- ism, 181 f., 185
Millenarianism; 206 f., 224 f.
Ministry, Orders of the; language of Hernias respecting, 40 f.
Mommsen; 39 n. 2; 266 n. 4
Montanism ; 199, 202, 208 n. i, 209 n. 2, 2ii f. ; reference to it in the Mnratorian Canon, 247 n. i
Muratorian fragment on the Canon ; its allusion to the Shepherd of Hernias, 35, 40, 247; makes no reference to the Gospel of Peter, 96 f. ; its account of the composition of the Gospel accg to St John, 233 n. 2; on the Gospels, 246 f.; its differences from the Canon now received, 247; its date, 247 n. i ; on the diverse be- ginnings of the Gospels, 257 n. 3
Neander; 167 n. 5
Nicholson, E. B. ; 250 n.
Nicodemus, Gospel of (otherwise called the Acts of Pilate] ; see Acts of Pilate (otherwise called Gospel of Nicodenms)
Nolle; 167 n. i
Origen ; on a Gospel by Basilides, 64 f . ; his reference to the Book of James, 122 f.; to the Gospel of Thomas, 1 26 n. 5 ; his citations from Heracleon, 158; on Quartodecimanism, 182, 191, 197; on the Four Gospels, 248 f.: the Gospel accg to the Hebrews, 256^ 267 n.; his mode of referring to it does not shew that a Greek trans- lation existed, 262 ff.; on the Gospel accg to the Egyptians, 265, 267 ; various Apocryphal Gospels, 269 Other references, 3111. 3,194 n. 1,273
Palestine, Churches of; their Synod- ical letter on Paschal observance, 193
Papias ; fragments of respecting records by Mark and Matthew, 52-7, 276 ; his acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel, 57; the statements alleged
286
Index
to have been derived from him which have been recently found, 166 f . ; his references to the Apostle John and to
tohn the Elder in a passage quoted y Eusebius, 168, 169 f. , 217 f., 224 f. ; on the Apostle Philip, 230 Other references, 138, 223 ff., 22.fn. 3 ircto-xa and pascha ; instances of their use by those who were not Ouarto- decimans, 194 n. i Paschal Chronicle ; 140^,179, i8of.,
185 n. i
Paschal observance ; in Churches that \vere not Quartodeciman, 192 ff.; Duchesne on, 183 n. 3, 195 n. 3; Funk on, 186 n., 195 n. 3 See also Quartodecimanism Paul, St; his argument in i Cor. ix. 9 compared with the reasoning of Ep. of Barnabas, 31 n. 3; his attitude to Paschal observance, 190 f. Persecution ; references to it and its effects in the Shepherd of Hernias t 36 f. ; the early history of, 38 f. Peter, Bp of Alexandria; on Paschal
observance, 179
Peter, The Gospel of; the supposed use of it by Justin M., 79, 93 ff., 269 ; its Docetism, 95 f. ; silence at Rome respecting this work, 96 f. ; Justin's parallelisms with it examined, 97- 102 ; these, as also those with Ter- tullian, the Gospel of Nicodemus, and Cyril of Jerusalem, are to be accounted for by the use in common of an early Pilate document, to which also Pilate's "letter" in the Acts of Peter and Paul is related, 117-121, 132 f . ; the question as to its use of our Gospels, 103 n. 4, 121 ; Serapion on it, 97, 269 Peter, The Preaching of; 14, 28,
98 n. 3, 125 Philaster; on the Alogi, 200 ff. ; his
dependence on Hippolytus, ib. Philip the Apostle ; 230 f. Philip the Evangelist; 230 f. Philip of Side ; estimates of his trust- worthiness, 167 Photius ; 142, 167, 242 Pilate, Acts of; see Acts of Pilate Pilate's letter to Claudius ; 1 10 ff. Pitra ; 140 n. 2 Pliny's letter to Trajan ; 38 n. 2,
194 n. 2
Plutarch; his manner of quoting, 24 f.
Polycarp; genuineness and date of his
epistle, 3 ; gives a piece of Christ's
teaching resembling in its form a
passage in the Ep. of Clem. Rom. 6, 16; parallelisms with the Synoptic ( iospels in his Epistle, 16 f., 27 ; with the Epp. of John and the Fourth Gospel, 20 ; silence respecting the Apostle John, 19 ff., 166, 235 ff.; his conference with Anicetus, 196, 227; Irenaeus' reference to his letters and reminiscences of him, 137 n. 1,214^; date of his martyrdom, 221 n. i
Polycarp, The Account of the Martyrdom of; 138
Polycrates; his defence of Quarto- decimanism, 177 f., 181 n. 2; he identifies the writer of the Fourth Gospel with the Apostle John, 197, 228 rf.; on Philip the Apostle, 230 f.
Ptolemaeus; 158, 214, 234
Quadratus, the Apologist ; 48, 50, 138
Quartodecimanism ; modern contro- versy in respect to, i 73 ff. ; statement and examination ot the evidence regarding it, 176 ff.; its bearing on the question of the Johannine author- ship of the Fourth Gospel, 195 ff., 234 f.
Quotations; circumstances affecting their form in early writers, 4 f. , 22-5
Quotations, Evangelic; in Clement of Rome, 5 ff., 25 f. ; in Epp. of Ignatius, 14, 15 ; in Justin M., 77 ff. ; their character in Sub-Apostolic writers generally, 3 f. ; affected by the subject, 149. See also references under the several Gospels
Quotations from the O.T. ; in Cle- ment of Rome, 4, 5 n. i ; in Justin M., 5 n- i
Raabe ; on the date of the Apology of Arts titles, 49 n. 2
Ramsay, W. M.; on the date of the Ep. of Barnabas, 32 ; the early history of persecution, 39 n. 3 ; the date of the Apocalypse, 172 n. 4
Renan; on Quartodecimanism, 175 n. r
Resch ; on the Evangelic quotations in Ep. of Clement of Rome, 6 n. 4, 7 ff . ; his view of a quotation in the 2nd Ep. of Clem. Rom., 59 n. 2; Papias' fragment respecting Matthew's re- cord, 55 n.
Rhodon ; on Tatian, 146
Robinson, J. A. ; his recovery of ( iicek of Apology of Aristidcs, 48 n. i; on its date etc., 49 nn. 2, 3; the term \<>yia, 53 n. 3; his discovery of
Index
287
the Acts of the Sdllitan Martyrs in their original Latin, 160
Salmon; his starting point in his treatment of the history of the N.T. Canon, \ ; on date of the Shepherd of Hennas, 41 n. 3; Quadratus, 50 n. 2 ; Hippolytus' account of system of Basilides, 66 n. i,6/n. i; Valentinus' use of Fourth Gospel, 69 n. 5; the Apologies of Melito and Apollinaris, 139 n. i ; the date of the Paschal Chronicle, 141 n. i; the significance of the use of the Fourth Gospel by Valentinians, 158 f . ; the date of the Apocalypse, 172 n. 4; Quarto- decimanism, 173 n. i, 176 n. ; the chronology of Montanism, 208 n. i Other references, 218 n. i, 250 n.
Sanday ; on the Evangelic quotations in the Ep. of Clem. Rom., 7 nn. 3, 4, 9 n. 2 ; Marcion's Gospel, 64 n. 2 ; Justin M. and the Gospel of Peter, 93 n. 3, 96 ; the Apocryphal matter in Justin, 133 ; the Clementine Homi- lies, 159 n. 2 ; the Alogi, 198 n. i, 203 n. 4, 211 Other references, 68 n. i, 157 n. 2
Schaff ; 176 n.
Schmid ; 139 n. 3, 221 n. i
Schmiedel ; on the question of Papias' acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel, 57 n. 2 ; the tradition respecting the Ephesine sojourn of the Apostle John, 163 n., 214 n. 2, 228 n. 4; Quarto- decimanism, 173 n. i
Scholten ; on the Acts of Pilate, 106 n. i, 114 n. 3 ; the tradition respect- ing the Ephesine sojourn of the Apostle John, 163 n.
Schubert, v. ; on Justin and the Gospel of Peter, 93 n. 3, 103 n. 4, 120 n. r
Schiirer ; on the Paschal controversy, 173 n. 2, 176, 185 n. 2, 186 n., 197 n. i
Schwegler;on Quartodecimanism, 175 n. i
Scillitan Martyrs, Acts of; recovery of Latin original, 160 ; date, ib. ; description given in it of Christian writings, ib.
Scrivener ; on divisions in N.T. writ- ings, 24
Seeberg ; on the date, etc., of Apology of Aristides, 49 nn. 2, 3
Selwyn, E. C. ; 139 n. 5, 171 n. 2
Semisch ; 78 n. i, 80 n. 2, 133
Serapion, Bp ; on the Gospel of Peter, 97, 269
Sergius Paulus ; the date of his pro- consulship, 139
Socrates (the Church historian) ; 142, .67
Soden, v. ; 93 n. 3
Soter, Bp ; 60 f., 143 n. i ; 153, 193
Stahelin ; on Hippolytus' account of the system of Basilides, 66 n. i, 67 n. i
Statius Quadratus; 221 n. i
Steiz ; on the Paschal controversy, 175 n. 2, 185 n. 4
Swete ; 93 n. 3, 121 n. i
Symmachus, 263 n. 2
Syrian Church ; Tatian's Diatessaron used in it, 260
Tatian ; chronology of his life and writings, 145-8; his relations with Justin M., and book on difficulties in the Scriptures, 146; the quotations from the Fourth Gospel in his Address, 149 ; his Diatessaron, 149 f. ; used in the Syrian Church, 150, 260 f. ; its significance in relation to the position of the four Gospels, 151 ; supposed by Credner to be the same as the Gospel accg to the Hebrews, 79 Tayler, J. J. ; 173 n. 2 Taylor, Dr C. ; on the witness of Hennas to the Four Gospels, 47 n. 3 Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, The (briefly styled the Didache] ; the form in which it gives Christ's precepts shews the effects of oral teaching, ro n. ; its character and date, 29 f. ; parallelisms in it with St Matthew and St Luke, 17, 31, 70 f. ; references to observance of the Lord's Day, and of Wednesdays and Fridays, 194 n. 2 Telesphorus, Bp : allusions to his
martyrdom, 39 n. i
Tertullian ; refers to chapters in the N.T., 24 ; on Gnostic use of the Gospels, 65 n. i ; his references to and quotations from a document by Pilate, 105 ff., 116 f., 133; confirms Justin and Hegesippus as to a sayingof Christ, 125, 135 (no. 16); the question as to his use of a Latin translation of the N.T., 161 n.; references to Paschal observance, 194 n. i ; on the Four Gospels, 245 f. ; his appeal to Church tradition, 272
Theodore of Mopsuestia; his cen- sure of Jerome's attitude to the Gospel accg to the Hebrews, 257 n. 4 Theophilus, Bp of Antioch ; date of his ad Autolycum, 144 ; citations in it from St Matthew and St John, 144 f.
288
Index
Thilo, J. C. ; 1 10 n. i
Thoma; on Justin's attitude to the Fourth Gospel, 130
Thomas, Gospel of; parallelism with in Justin M., 126, 134 (no. 6) ; Hip- polytus, Origen, Eusebius on it, 126 n. 5, 269
Tischendorf ; on the Acts of Pilate,
. 106 n. i, 112 n. 3, 114 n. 3; the Acts of Peter and Paul, published by him, iion.
Tradition ; the appeal to, 272 f.
Tubingen School; 162 f., 171 n. 2, 173 ff., 197 n. i, 273
Valentinus ; question of his use of our third and fourth Gospels, 69, 205
Victor, Bp ; letter of Polycrates to him on Quartodecimanism, 177, 195; letter of Irenaeus to him, on same subject, 192 f., 115, 227 f. ; another respecting Florinus, 220
Vienne and Lyons, Letter of Churches of; 142 f. ; parallelisms with N.T. writings in, 142 f.
Volkmar ; on the chronology of Justin's life and writings, 76 n. 2 ; Hippolytus' Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse, 202 n; 3 Othef references, 198 n. r, 199 n. 2
Waddington ; 139 n. 3, 185 n. 3, 221 n. i
Weiss, B. ; on the special reverence for Christ's sayings, 54 n. i ; sugges- tion that Justin was less familiar with the Fourth Gospel than with the others, 90 n. 2 ; on the date of the Apocalypse, 172 n. 4
Weitzel ; on the Paschal controversy, 175 n. 2, 190 n. 2
Weizsaecker ; on the date of the Ep. of Barnabas, 32 ; Hegesippus, 155 nn. 1,4; the date of the Apocalypse, 172 n. 4
Westcott, Bp ; on Justin's quotations from the O.T., 5 n. i ; date of the Shepherd of Hernias, 41 n. 3; the term \6yia, 53 n. 3 ; as to Valentinus'
use of our third and fourth Gospels, 69 nn. 4, 5 ; on a fragment of Melito, 1 40 n. 2 ; the date of the Apocalypse, 172 n. 4
Other references, 53 nn. i, 2, 65 n. 2, 80 n. 2, 145 n. 6, 149 nn. i, 4, 155 n. 4, 157 n. 2, 159 n. 2, 198 n. i, 221 n. i, 237 n., 248 n. 5
Zahn ; his starting point in the investi- gation of the history of the N.T. Canon, i ; on the genuineness of the Ep. of Ignatius in the shorter Greek form, 3 n. 2 ; the relations of the Didache with the Shepherd of Hennas and the Ep. of Barnabas, 30 n. i ; date of the Shepherd of Hennas, 41 n. 3 ; the use of our Gospels by Basilides, 65 n. 4 ; Hippolytus' account of the system of Basil ides, 66 nn. i, 2, 69 n. i ; the question whether Justin used the Gospel of Peter, 93 n. 3, 99 ; the Protevangelinm Jacobi and the question whether Justin used it, 124 n. i ; the text of the passage of Tatian's Address, quoted by Eusebius, 147 n. 3 ; the date of Tatian's Address, 148 n. 7 ; the time at which the Scriptures were first translated into Latin, i6r n. ; the Alogi, 198 n. i ; the interpretation of Irenaeus' reference to them, 199^ i ; Epiphanius' dependence on Hippo- lytus, 200 n. 3, 202 nn. i, 2, 203 n. 2, 207 ; chronology of Montanism, 208 n. i, 209 n. 2; Irenaeus' age when he was a hearer of Polycarp and the date of his birth, 215 n. 4, 218 f., 220 n. 3 ; the Elders referred to by Irenaeus, 222 n. r, 224 n. 2, 227 n. i ; date of the Muratorian Canon, 247 n. i ; the Gospel accg to the Hebrews, 250 n., 254 n., 257 f. ; Clement of Alexandria's quotations from the Gospel accg to the Egyptians, 265 n. 2
Other references; 45 n. 2, 46 n. 3, 59 n. 2, i io n., 146 n. 6, 160 n. i, i76n., 199, 207 n. 2, 221 n. i, 237 n.
CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, AT THK UNIVERSITY PRESS.
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
Acme Library Card Pocket
Under Pat. "Ref. Index File." Made by LIBRARY BUREAU
<$w
^*%
AVV/\««r
••*;.*'""'
A'/X^*
^Y5ta«r
^ T»/V
:i^^^V'
«*v